Tony Perkins, head of the hate group Family Research Council, is mightily displeased by Judge Jones’ decision in Pennsylvania striking down the state’s same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional. Well I guess that Perkins is entitled to vent:
Judge Jones ruling has no basis in Supreme Court precedent, and lacks any foundation in the text of the Constitution, or in the history or traditions of our country. Instead, he substituted his own personal dogmatic ideology as he proclaimed that any recognition of natural marriage should be thrown ‘into the ash heap of history.’
Did Perkins read the opinion in United States v. Windsor or does he just make this goofy stuff up as he goes along? Seriously. Windsor is quite clear with respect to equal protection and due process protections. Moreover, Justice Kennedy was unambiguous when he wrote that states can regulate marriage providing that they do not interfere with the civil rights of citizens.
What is inevitable is that male-female unions will continue to be uniquely important to society. The only question is whether Government will acknowledge that fact or attempt to deny the truth about marriage.
Yes, Mr. Perkins. Men and women will still marry, divorce, re-marry and pop out children along the way.
Something else that the judge wrote:
In terms of state interests served by Pennsylvania’s Marriage Laws,
Defendants advance the following: the promotion of procreation, child-rearing and
the well-being of children, tradition, and economic protection of Pennsylvania
businesses. Defendants appear to defend only the first two aims, stating that
numerous federal and state courts have agreed that responsible procreation and
child-rearing are legitimate state interests and providing extensive authority for
that proposition. Significantly, Defendants claim only that the objectives are
“legitimate,” advancing no argument that the interests are “important” state
interests as required to withstand heightened scrutiny. Also, Defendants do not
explain the relationship between the classification and the governmental
objectives served; much less do they provide an exceedingly persuasive
justification. In essence, Defendants argue within the framework of deferential
review and go no further. 14 Indeed, it is unsurprising that Defendants muster no
argument engaging the strictures of heightened scrutiny, as we, too, are unable to
fathom an ingenuous defense saving the Marriage Laws from being invalidated
under this more-searching standard.
Once again, the state cannot demonstrate that same-sex marriage affects opposite-sex marriage in any way whatsoever. They had no case. Mr. Perkins better come to terms with the fact that our civil laws are free of religious objections. At least they are supposed to be.