Featured Image
Sen. Ted Cruz speaks outside the U.S. Supreme Court at a rally during oral arguments for Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby.American Life League

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 1, 2015 ( – Lawyers, the media, pundits, and activists will spend the next two months debating how the Supreme Court will come down on the issue of same-sex “marriage.” But according to social conservative leaders, the Court shouldn't even be addressing the question.

“The U.S. Supreme Court does not have the right to redefine marriage for all states, but instead should affirm [the states'] ability to decide marriage policy,” said Rep. John Fleming, R-LA. “Marriage unites two unique individuals, ideally providing children with a mom and a dad, both of who are irreplaceable in a child’s life.”

Likewise, Rep. Joe Pitts, R-PA – who along with Fleming and Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-MO, is a top social conservative in the House – said that “marriage is based on the reality that children do best with a Mom and a Dad. As the Constitution remains silent on the issue, the people of Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky and many other states have voted to maintain this definition.”

“I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will recognize that this is an issue to be decided by the states,” Congresswoman Hartzler said. “Missourians have overwhelmingly voted to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman; and I support their right to define this issue.”

Former Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-OH, said that marriage “is the ideal for raising children and is good for society,” and “should be defined as it has always been.” Jordan also stated that “a Supreme Court decision would only exacerbate” national divisions, and “like the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, a Supreme Court ruling that overturns state laws on marriage would do nothing to end the debate about marriage, but would instead prolong it.”

Republican presidential candidate and Texas Senator Ted Cruz said that “in recent years, federal judges have defied the power of the people to define marriage through their elected representatives as a covenant between one man and one woman. Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in cases raising the question of whether such judicial intrusion is constitutionally proper. It is not.”

Cruz also said that religious liberty would be threatened by “this effort to redefine marriage by judicial fiat.” According to the senator, “there was a time when the defense of religious liberty was an issue of bipartisan agreement. Yet now the progressive Left is seeking to force their view of marriage upon all Americans, regardless of their religious convictions”

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

Others found the justices rejected the worst of the arguments before them.

“The justices took apart the central contention of the plaintiffs, that the refusal to permit same-sex marriage arises from animus or prejudice – noting that even in ancient Greece, even authors like Plato who approved of sodomy, never made room for same sex marriage in the law,” Catholic author John Zmirak told LifeSiteNews. The Senior Editor for the faith-centric political website also said that justices “pointed to the rational, practical grounds for heterosexual marriage as the means of protecting children and carrying on the species. If the justices follow that logic, we win.”

The Federalist Society's Dr. John Eastman, a professor at the Chapman University School of law, said that he “was very pleased with the depth of understanding of the issues that was evident in the Justice’s questions this morning. Chief Justice Roberts began by noting, for example, that petitioners were not seeking to join the institution of marriage but to change what it is. And Justice Kennedy added – what it has been for millennia. Justice Breyer, too, focused on the “millennia” issue, pointedly asking counsel for the petitioners why it would be appropriate for 9 judges to impose on all 50 states a change in the understanding of marriage that has existed for millennia.”

Eastman noted that “one can never predict outcome from oral argument,” but also said that such questions from the justices are “an encouraging sign.”

Heritage Foundation scholar Dr. Ryan Anderson likewise told his organization's news arm, The Daily Signal, that Kennedy's questions boded well for a ruling later this year.

However, Hot Air senior editor Allahpundit — a supporter of same-sex “marriage” – said that Kennedy's judicial history indicates he will overturn state marriage laws. Allahpundit also cited Tweets from the group SCOTUS Blog, which analyzes Supreme Court hearings, briefs, reactions, and other Court goings-on. Those Tweets indicate that Kennedy could side with proponents of same-sex “marriage.”

The American College of Pediatricians urged Kennedy and the other eight justices on the Supreme Court to “consider the well-being of children in the case before them this week…”

“While the debate over the legitimacy of same-sex marriage can be viewed from many perspectives, there should be little debate about the effects it has upon children: Same-sex marriage deliberately deprives the child of a mother or a father, and is therefore detrimental.”

According to its statement, “the College advocates for children in this debate from an objective position grounded in scientific evidence.”

Victoria Cobb, president of The Family Foundation of Virginia, told LifeSiteNews at Tuesday's pro-marriage rally in front of the Supreme Court that “the reason a state has a role in marriage in the first place” is to do “what is best for a child.”

“The Supreme Court will be hearing the fundamental arguments about why a child needs a Mom and a Dad, and the unique gifts that are brought into the life of a child by both a Mom and a Dad, and that each child deserves this opportunity,” said Cobb, who also disputed the idea that animus exists in pro-marriage laws.

“I think people can imagine animus wherever they want, but the reality is there are millions upon millions of Americans who simply believe that children deserve a mom and a dad. There is no animus.”


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.