Ryan Anderson, editor of the Witherspoon Institute’s Public Discourse and a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, has done yeoman service in providing an overview of some of the many arguments made by amici curiae in briefs submitted to the Supreme Court in its two upcoming marriage cases. More than fifty such briefs have been filed, in defense of the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Ryan has the first of a series of posts highlighting the arguments in these briefs here, at Heritage’s site. I look forward to more installments.
Monday, March 11, 2013, 4:58 PM
March 13th, 2013 | 5:26 pm
There is only one winning argument. It is not even an argument, just an explanation. And i do not see that explanation being made anywhere. The relationship of marriage cannot be redefined, since the relationship is physically possible. The definition of that relationship accords with the physical reality of parenthood (permanent, heterosexual ie containing both sexes, and exclusive ie containing only two people). The legal institution of marriage is therefore defined to give a legal definition of parenthood ie a way for parents and children to have their natural rights protected.
The relationship cannot be redefined. The legal institution can. If we do redefine the legal institution (in any way) we have the wrong definition of parenthood ie one that cannot protect the natural rights of children.
The key here is to realise that – while the definition is currently in harmony with the context (founding a family) – any new definition would retain the old context. The legal institution would still be the mechanism through which families are legally recognised, but the families recognised could no longer be recognised as natural. The law would be stating that people are not physically related to each other. The law would be lying.
http://gentlemind.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/evidence-submitted-to-public-bill.html