Supreme Court to rule on same-sex marriage in June of this year

 

In April, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of four state laws—from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee—that hold that marriage is between one man and one woman.  While same-sex marriage is currently legal in 37 states, this case could be the final step in legalizing same-sex marriage across the nation.

Sotirios Barber, Professor of Political Science, shared his insights with the Rover.  “Everything depends on Justice Kennedy.  So far, he’s leaning toward a decision favoring gay marriage.  But in previous decisions he has stopped short of gay marriage,” he said.

“Has he proceeded incrementally to allow the public time to get used to the idea?  Is he looking for a way to be fair to same-sex couples without calling their unions ‘marriages’?” Barber continued.  “We’ll know more this summer.”

Some have questioned whether ruling in favor of same-sex marriage is the correct interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

Ryan Anderson, William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, editor of Public Discourse, and co-author with Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis of What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, told the Rover, “The Supreme Court should uphold these [state] laws and respect the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected officials to make marriage policy.”

“Nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires the states to (re)define marriage to include same-sex relationships—and judges shouldn’t say otherwise,” Anderson said.  “There are two central questions in the broader debate: What is marriage?  And who gets to decide?  The people and their elected representatives should deliberate and vote about marriage policy—not unelected judges—and they should make policy that serves the common good by reflecting the truth that marriage is the union of a man and woman.”

In addition to the constitutional interpretation of the statutes, some argue that religious liberty is central to the decision in this case.

“It is unfortunately very likely that the Supreme Court will impose same-sex ‘marriage’ upon the entire country,” Gerard Bradley, Professor of Law, told the Rover.  “This decision would be a gross misinterpretation of the Constitution, one that will have consequences as great for religious liberty in this country as it will for marriage and family life—and the consequences for both will be enormous.”

“One can reasonably hope, however, that even if the Court imposes same-sex ‘marriage,’ that it does so without denigrating opponents of same-sex ‘marriage’ as bigots who just want to harm gay and lesbian people and any children they might steward,” Bradley stated.  “This demonization of those who defend the truth about marriage has sadly become a staple of judicial opinions.  But the demonization is false, illiberal, and wholly destructive of civic harmony.”

Bradley continued, “One instead hopes that, by respecting and even valuing traditional marriage and its millions of supporters, the Court will pave the way for much more generous religious liberty protections of Catholic, and other religious institutions, to receive legal protection from what amounts to an unjustified, intolerant, and dogmatic attack upon their integrity and mission.”

Barber offered a different perspective.  “The Supreme Court’s decision either way will affect no one’s religious liberty, as the Court currently defines it.  If our faith tells us gay marriage is a sin, we shouldn’t marry someone of the same sex, and no government is forcing us to.”

Matthew Hall, Assistant Professor of Political Science, agreed with Barber’s assessment.  “I doubt the decision will have any effect at all on Notre Dame or religious liberty.  It doesn’t seem to be a question of religious liberty at all because no state is trying to force a church to define marriage in a particular way,” he told the Rover.

Barber added, “[T]his wouldn’t affect religious freedom as currently conceived in constitutional law, for there is no constitutional exemption on religious grounds from generally applicable laws that aren’t enacted from hostility toward religion.”

“In America today, laws protecting gays from discrimination don’t seem to flow from an urge to harm or offend religious communities,” he continued.  “They seem to express a sincere belief that homosexuals who work, pay taxes, and stand ready to fight for their country should be treated the same as everyone else.”

As a Catholic institution, the University of Notre Dame’s view of marriage may be challenged as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in this case.  The question remains whether Catholic organizations would be required to give benefits to same-sex couples or if some type of redress would be possible.

“A decision for gay marriage would also leave us free to work for judicial appointments and constitutional amendments that would reverse the decision,” Barber argued.  “In the meantime Notre Dame would have to follow laws regarding employment and employee benefits, and the Court’s upcoming decision could embrace gay couples within these protections.”

“Sadly, none of this will matter to Notre Dame, for the Notre Dame Administration has decided to treat same-sex couples as married just the same as opposite-sex couples.  The Administration has done so freely, willingly, and blithely,” Bradley asserted.

“It is therefore no less than tragic that in doing so the leaders of Notre Dame, from Fr. Jenkins on down, have contradicted the moral truth, and utterly ignored repeated counsels from the Pope and the bishops issued over the last fifteen years,” Bradley concluded.

The Supreme Court will hand down a ruling on the constitutionality of marriage laws in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee in June.

Hailey Vrdolyak is a junior living in Pangborn Hall who, after two and a half years of living there, can never remember which way to turn the key to unlock the door. To help her with this dilemma email her at hvrdolya@nd.edu.