Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that on April 28 it will listen to oral arguments in four consolidated cases pivotal for the future of marriage in the United States.
Two years ago, in a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the federal definition of marriage as one man and one woman in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. However, at that time, the Justices resisted a Roe v Wade type of decision imposing a new definition of marriage nationwide.
Now that question is upon it. At issue are not the merits of one view of marriage over another. Rather, the Court must decide if the U.S. Constitution requires states to recognize same-sex marriage.
In a detailed Heritage Foundation memo on these cases, Gene Schaerr and Ryan Anderson declare:
The only way one can establish the unconstitutionality of man–woman marriage laws is to adopt a view of marriage that sees it as an essentially genderless, adult-centric institution and then declare that the Constitution requires that the states (re)define marriage in that way. In other words, one needs to establish that the vision of marriage our law has long applied is just wrong and that the Constitution requires a different vision entirely.
NRB will continue to be a voice in defense of marriage, the bedrock of the family and, thus, the future of the Republic. Moreover, NRB will continue to insist on the fundamental First Amendment freedoms of Americans to uphold their religious beliefs in all areas of daily life.
By Aaron Mercer, Vice President of Government Relations
Published: March 27, 2015