In a matter of just two weeks, three states have had their constitutional amendments that recognize a man and woman as being essential to a marital relationship struck down in whole or in part as unconstitutional. First, Kentucky was told they had to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages as marriages in the state of Kentucky. Then, Virginia’s constitutional amendment recognizing natural marriage as the only valid form of marriage was struck down. Now, on February 26, federal Judge Orlando Garcia ruled that Texas’ constitutional amendment that recognizes a man and woman as being essential to a marital relationship is unconstitutional. Like Virginia, however, the ruling does not go into effect immediately. Judge Garcia determined not to enforce his ruling until two similar cases are decided by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
I have not read each of these decisions, but similar decisions in the past typically argue that there is no rational basis for thinking a marriage requires persons of the opposite-sex. According to the news outlets, similar statements appeared in these latest decisions. I’ve always found this troubling. To me, it is either completely disingenuous, or reveals the judges’ complete ignorance of our argument. Those who think gender matters for marriage have an argument: Marriage is a pre-political, natural institution rooted in human nature and involves an organic, comprehensive union of two persons – a union only achieved by two complementary sexes whose sexual union is oriented toward procreation.
It’s one thing to say you do not find your opponent’s rationale convincing, but to say that he has no rationale at all, and his position is completely animated by animus and bigotry is ridiculous. Judges who make such claims ought to be ashamed of themselves. It’s not sound analysis and legal reasoning, but personal bias and rhetoric masquerading as legal reasoning.
Thinking to Believe 
March 6, 2014 at 6:46 am
” I’ve always found this troubling. ”
Why troubling? Sincerely, I’d like to know.
As these rulings will not force straight people to marry gay people, and will not legally invalidate straight marriages, what is troubling?
You can continue to have your opinion and share it/teach it to those who want to hear it.
I just don’t understand the objection to gay marriage existing, especially as it has no impact on you.
Again, this is meant sincerely.
LikeLike
March 6, 2014 at 9:41 am
Jason:
The problem is that you only see marriage through a myopic lens: the gentitalia sex lens.
The New Generation looks at Marriage Unions as Adult Interdependent Partners. In this relationship sex is not considered essential for adult interdependency; therefore, sexual inequality is out the door as a discriminatory tool. The New See covers a range of personal relationships that fall outside of religious(sexual) marriage, including but not necessarily exclusively, committed platonic relationships, where two people agree to share emotional, economic and domestic responsibilities that provides a legal definition for the New See.
Move with the times Jason or the times will move without you. The old school generation remains comfortable without a computer and a cell phone, but the Next Generation does not care!
Like the New Generation cell phone users says to the kids: “Yes, it is true, our ancestor home phones had spinning dials and believe it or not they had tails..”
LikeLike
March 6, 2014 at 1:15 pm
Get used to it. Here in Canada SSM is the law of the land. The SCOC is very activist and loves to strike down laws passed by Parliament and our constitution isn’t even that old. In Canada, it is my understanding the government couldn’t pass a law that gave a benefit to an OSM unless the SSM couple got the same benefit. This is my problem with SSM, it doesn’t allow the government to reward a behavior it wishes to encourage (ie. traditional marriage). Treating people differently is not always discrimination. Presently the SSM impact is negligible, but will increase if/once the promised income splitting for younger married couples becomes law. IMO, the concerns of same sex couples could have been addressed under legal contracts, wills, living wills, power of attorney and if necessary new legislation for civil unions.
LikeLike
March 11, 2014 at 6:54 am
For those that think it should be legalised, Greg Koukl has an interesting explanation which I’ll try to summarise below:
Is “marriage” a term that we can define, or is it a description of what reality is. (eg, the word “gravity” describes reality, we could not redfine “gravity” to include something else and have it make sense)
If you think we can redefine the word, why stop at same-sex? what about polygyny, polyandry, and polyamory? And once you have these, why not siblings or father-daughter, father-son, mother-daughter, mother-son marriages? Once it goes this far, just what is the point of the state being involved??
The purpose of the state recognising marriage as 1 man – 1 woman is that this is generally what produces the next generation. Moreover, children in this nuclear family generally do better than in any other upbringing environment. It is this basis that the government wants to be involved as it has an interest in the next generation. Same-sex relationships have no sort of benefit as it is just the sexual nature of two adults so why does it want to get involved other than social engineering?? And for what purpose?
This is a logical slippery slope which car-crashes into a marriage being whatever you want it to be and thereby destroys the descriptive use of the actual word.
LikeLike
March 11, 2014 at 8:37 am
Scottspeig:
“Is “marriage” a term that we can define”
Yes. Yes it is. We can define it and have throughout history.
“And once you have these, why not siblings or father-daughter, father-son, mother-daughter, mother-son marriages? ”
Show me the people asking for these and I will then address it as a real issue.
“The purpose of the state recognising marriage as 1 man – 1 woman is that this is generally what produces the next generation.”
As there are too many parentless children needing homes, and as the studies show that children grow equally well with gay parents, then the existence of these couples can easily be promoted by a government.
Especially considering they are more likely to be better suited for parenthood due to the simple fact that they cannot accidentally become parents.
LikeLike
March 11, 2014 at 8:42 am
scottspeig:
The New See covers a range of personal relationships that fall outside of religious (sexual) marriage, including but not necessarily limited to, platonic relationships, where two people agree to share emotional, economic and domestic responsibilities that provides a legal definition for the New See.
This Adult Interdependent Relationship may be relatives or non relativies, same apparent gender couples. As long as you dwell on sex as defining marriage, you will never get pass physical gender identifiers.
In other words you are STUCK in MUCK because of UCK.
LikeLike