Supreme Constitutional Trespass: Marriage
Courts and marriage, courts and marriage; they go together like a cat and carriage. With the Supreme Court possibly poised to strike down the remaining state bans on official recognition of same-sex relationships, it’s lamentable, but important to note, that things have gone this far only because of a universal failure to acknowledge and argue the central point in the faux-marriage debate. This is not merely that, as our Constitution dictates, marriage is no business of the feds. It is something more fundamental, something informing that — except insofar as a state constitution may contain marriage prescriptions — it is, in fact, no business of any court.
If I stated that homosexuals already have a right to marry — to form a matrimonial union with a member of the opposite sex — faux marriage advocates will certainly disagree with the italicized definition. “Who are you to define marriage for everyone else!” is the idea. And this gets at the point: The marriage debate is not about rights.
It is about definitions.
JBS Member or ShopJBS.org Customer?
Sign in with your ShopJBS.org account username and password or use that login to subscribe.
Subscribe Now
- 24 Issues Per Year
- Digital Edition Access
- Exclusive Subscriber Content
- Audio provided for all articles
- Unlimited access to past issues
- Cancel anytime.
- Renews automatically
Subscribe Now
- 24 Issues Per Year
- Print edition delivery (USA)
*Available Outside USA - Digital Edition Access
- Exclusive Subscriber Content
- Audio provided for all articles
- Unlimited access to past issues
- Cancel anytime.
- Renews automatically