WASHINGTON, D.C., April 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – It is not merely rock-ribbed traditionalists who understand the unprecedented nature of overturning the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman: Justice Anthony Kennedy said marriage had been constituted on a biological basis for “millennia.”
“I don't even know how to count the decimals when we talk about millennia,” Kennedy, who is widely considered to be the Court's swing vote, said during oral arguments today. “This definition has been with us for millennia. It's very difficult for the Court to say, 'Oh well, we know better.'”
Kennedy added that all societies, from ancient Rome and Greece as well as the Kalahari people, allowed same-sex relationships but restricted marriage to members of the opposite sex.
Mary Bonauto, who petitioned the court to rule that the Constitution demands states impose homosexual “marriage,” said that all the laws in human history that deny same-sex marriage “encompass moral judgments and stereotypes about gay people.”
Justice Samuel Alito asked whether she was serious. “Until the end of the 20th century, there never was a nation or a culture that recognized marriage between two people of the same sex?” he asked. “Now, can we infer from that that those nations and those cultures all thought that there was some rational, practical purpose for defining marriage in that way or is it your argument that they were all operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes and prejudice?”
She replied merely that “times can blind.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – a liberal who has performed same-sex “marriage” ceremonies – said that marriages have changed, as sexual roles have become more “egalitarian.” But Chief Justice John Roberts said that chauvinistic roles were “not a universal aspect of marriage around the world.” Yet having members of two sexes is part of “the basic definition.”
Kennedy also objected that, if the Court rushes to judgment by recognizing a national right to gay “marriage” a mere decade after its introduction – by judicial fiat – justices cannot look at whether “social science” proves that the institution has succeeded or failed.
“It seems to me that if we're not going to wait, then it's only fair for us to say, well, we're not going to consult social science.”
Bonauto said there is “a social science consensus that there's nothing about the sex or sexual orientation of the parent, that is going to affect child outcomes.”
However, numerous studies have called into question that contention.