Family Council Calls on Justices to Stand by Arkansans

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, April 28, 2015

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges. This is considered by many to be a landmark case that will determine the future of marriage in America.

Family Council President Jerry Cox released a statement, saying, “Contrary to what some may believe, this is not simply a fight over same-sex marriage. This is about how marriage will be defined in America and who gets to write that definition.”

Cox said the U.S. Supreme Court should uphold state marriage laws in order to be consistent with its decision in United States v. Windsor. “In that ruling, the court said that marriage would be defined by each individual state. Upholding state marriage amendments as constitutional is the only way the court can be consistent with its 2013 Windsor decision.”

Cox said state marriage laws do more than simply ban same-sex marriage. “When the law says marriage is the union of one man to one woman, that is not simply a same-sex marriage ban. That defines the institution of marriage, and it prevents any other union from being classified as ‘marriage,’ including everything from same-sex marriage to polygamy.”

Cox said the U.S. Supreme Court should respect the will of the people concerning marriage. “If the court chooses to strike state marriage laws now, it will be doing so at the expense of democracy. Voters in Arkansas and thirty other states chose to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Voters in only three states have voted to define marriage differently. Every poll in more than a decade has indicated Arkansans still support the definition of marriage they adopted in 2004. This is something voters have handled very capably up to this point. Unilaterally striking these state marriage laws would signal that voters are incapable or irrelevant in the eyes of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

###

Why is the U.S. Supreme Court Jilting States on Marriage?

Earlier this week we learned the U.S. Supreme Court will not hear several appeals over lower court rulings that struck state laws defining marriage as the union of one man to one woman.

This was a surprising move by the court. And while it is not the “victory” many on the Left claim it is–there are still other appeals pending, so our justices will not be able to dodge the issue forever–it does raise the question exactly why the U.S. Supreme Court is running away from the marriage debate at the moment.

In order for an appeal to brought up before the U.S. Supreme Court, at least four of the court’s nine justices must vote to hear it. The fact that these appeals concerning marriage will not be heard means that no more than three justices wanted to hear the cases–and it’s possible that the court decided unanimously to ignore the appeals. Depending on who you ask, many people agree there are three or four “conservative” justices on the court: Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. Since it only takes four votes to bring an appeal before the court, presumably at least one (maybe more) of these four justices did not want the marriage issue brought up. Why would they do that?

It’s just speculation on my part, but the answer may lie in Associate Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion from the 2013 United States v. Windsor ruling that struck part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In his dissent, Justice Scalia wrote, (more…)

U.S. Supreme Court Kicking the Can Down the Road

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear appeals over state marriage amendments defining marriage as the union of one man to one woman in five states. This means lower court rulings overturning the amendments will be allowed to stand.

Some of the activists who want to redefine marriage are treating this as a victory. The truth is all the court is doing is kicking the can a little further down the road.

As you probably know, federal judges around the country have issued rulings on state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. Several judges have declared these laws unconstitutional; recently, however, a federal judge in Louisiana upheld the state’s marriage amendment.

(more…)