Same Sex Marriage: Sixth Circuit Court Dissents From The Rest, Will SCOTUS Take It Up?

Supreme Court Decides Whether Of Not To Review Challenge Of California's Prop 8

The onward march of same-sex marriage in the United States seems inevitable with the Supreme Court ducking the question so far because of a lack of disagreement among the lower courts. Now an opinion is handed down from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that says this:

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati ruled 2 to 1 that although same-sex marriage across the nation is practically inevitable, in the words of U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, it should be settled through the democratic process and not the judicial one.

Well, that’s interesting since more than one popular vote restricting the definition of marriage to one man married to one woman was overturned in the courts for being unconstitutional.  There’s nothing more Democratic than a straight up or down vote, and yet other judges have said that the people have no opinion in what defines marriage.  What that translates to, though, is “disagreement” among the lower courts and the very real possibility of the Supreme Court needing to take up the question of how marriage is defined and who does the defining.

For people who believe that Natural Law as preordained by God (and/or Mother Nature) determines what defines marriage – that the union of husband and wife is the basic social building block in raising future generations in order to maintain civilization – this is a glimmer of hope that the light at the end of the tunnel may well be at least a few judges not legislating from the bench.  However, to those who look on marriage at almost a strictly contractual level as opposed to a covenant, the dissenting judge’s opinion in the 6th Circuit case illustrates that that light in the dark distance may well be an oncoming train:

Daughtrey describes them as families “who want to achieve equal status… with their married neighbors, friends, and coworkers, to be accepted as contributing members of their social and religious communities, and to be welcomed as fully legitimate parents at their children’s schools. They seek to do this by virtue of exercising a civil right that most of us take for granted — the right to marry.”

Since when is the right to marry a civil right?  When the state required a license in order to be called married.  In that way, marriage is reduced to a contract made and broken at will.  If that is the case, anyone has the right to marry, just not the right to define marriage as one pleases, stating that any group that calls itself a family is one.  Whether or not that should be accepted really should be left up to the democratic process as Judge Sutton describes regardless of the heartstrings tugged by homosexual couples who are in committed relationships.  Social acceptance for the greater good can’t be ruled on or legislated.  It just is or is not.  Just because there is a contract in place does not mean that full legitimacy in the eyes of others will follow.

There is nothing preventing people who are attracted to members of the same sex from being full members of families, social and religious communities with enough love and charity.  Some such people are even great parents and caregivers for others.  But that does not change that the primary purpose for marriage now as it was before the 20th century when contraception made it purely optional is the birthing and raising of the next generation.  That is why marriage – true marriage – is a union of man and woman, not just a bond.  Anything else needs to be defined differently.

The ball is now in the Supreme Court’s court.

About the Author

Cultural Limits
A resident of Flyover Country, Cultural Limits is a rare creature in American Conservatism - committed to not just small government, Christianity and traditional social roles, but non-profits and high arts and culture. Watching politics, observing human behavior and writing are all long-time interests. In her other life, CL writes romance novels under her nom de plume, Patricia Holden (@PatriciaHoldenAuthor on Facebook), and crochets like a mad woman (designs can be found on Facebook @BohemianFlairCrochet and on Pinterest on the Bohemian Flair Crochet board). In religion, CL is Catholic; in work, the jill of all trades when it comes to fundraising software manipulation and event planning; in play, a classically trained soprano and proud citizen of Cardinal Nation, although, during hockey season, Bleeds Blue. She lives in the Mid-Mississippi River Valley with family and two cute and charming tyrants...make that toy dogs.

1 Comment on "Same Sex Marriage: Sixth Circuit Court Dissents From The Rest, Will SCOTUS Take It Up?"

  1. Susie Allread | 11/09/2014 at 2:52 PM |

    I agree, get the vote of the state, not the government. Did you happen to read about the little boy who is way to young to decide if he wants to be a girl , being raised by 2 lesbians? If that happens the court should JAIL his so called GAY PARENTS. The kid is too young to decide, and you know they forced their sick ideals on him. NO gays should be raising ANYONES kids.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.




This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.