FRC: Understanding Windsor

Marriage, , ,

Still don’t understand all the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 United States v. Windsor decision? You aren’t alone.

Fortunately, Family Research Council has put together a brief report outlining the Windsor ruling–which struck part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The report points out:

“Dissenting justices criticized the majority for its attack upon the motives behind the law. Chief Justice Roberts said that the facts are ‘hardly enough to support a conclusion that the ‘principal purpose’ of the 342 Representatives and 85 Senators who voted for it, and the President [Bill Clinton] who signed it, was a bare desire to harm’ … Justice Scalia likewise … explained that to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions.”

The report also addresses looming questions for state and federal agencies in the wake of the ruling.

You can read the entire report here.

READ MORE

“Marriage on Trial”

Marriage, ,

Family Research Council has published a concise fact sheet illustrating the constitutionality of state marriage laws regarding same-sex marriage.

The paper highlights the fact that “no provision of the Constitution makes any reference to marriage,” and examines common arguments, including the argument that laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman “discriminate.”

The paper concludes that state laws defining marriage are constitutional and the issue of marriage “should be decided through the democratic process.”

Click here to read the fact sheet, “Marriage on Trial.”

READ MORE

Colson Center Explains Why A.G.s Need to Defend Marriage Laws

Marriage,

From the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview:

Imagine for a moment that someone sues you. You arrive in court, expecting your lawyer to defend your interests, only to hear him say that he disagrees with you and will now assist your adversary.

There would be pandemonium. Your attorney would be relieved of his duties, and in all likelihood, face professional censure.

Yet, something akin to this happened to the people of Virginia last week. It’s part of a trend that should trouble people regardless of their position on certain “hot-button” issues.

Click here to read and listen to Breakpoint’s full commentary.

READ MORE