In a decision yesterday, the 6th Circuit has decided that the original definition of marriage in each state and the laws associated with that are, in fact, constitutional, that there is no bigotry or folly in supporting them and why the courts can’t make the state change the law.
…the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit overruled lower court decisions that had struck down state laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
The 6th Circuit Court ruled that constitutional amendments passed by popular vote in Michigan (2.7 million votes), Kentucky (1.2 million), Ohio (3.3 million) and Tennessee (1.4 million) do not violate the U.S. Constitution. Citizens remain free to define marriage as a male-female institution.
After the Supreme Court’s ruling on the federal Defense of Marriage Act case supported the states’ authority to define marriage, as well as a humble quote, the 6th Circuit showed the respect for citizens is what lies at the heart of the decision.
A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the states.
Imagine a society without marriage. It does not take long to envision problems that might result from an absence of rules about how to handle the natural effects of male-female intercourse: children. May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is responsible for the children that result? How many mates may an individual have? How does one decide which set of mates is responsible for which set of children? That we rarely think about these questions nowadays shows only how far we have come and how relatively stable our society is, not that States have no explanation for creating such rules in the first place.
The court is honorable in its’ caution with making such fundamental decisions for the nation, claiming that traditionalists cannot be marked as irrational for supporting a definition of marriage that is older than traditional society when there is only one year of data by which to compare the Petri dish of the same-sex redefinition in certain states.
(h/t: The Daily Signal)