"Throughout history and societies, marriage has been connected with procreation and childrearing.... It follows that it is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure."
"In this situation," the court continued, "to suddenly constitutionalize the issue of same-sex marriage 'would short-circuit' the legislative actions that have been taking place in Hawaii."
The opinion holds that the claim for such a right is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Baker v. Nelson (slip op. at 35-43). Alternatively, properly applying rational-basis review and judicial restraint, the Court finds that such a claim fails on the merits.
The salient point is that "[b]ecause Hawaii's marriage laws are rationally related to legitimate government interests, they do not violate the federal Constitution." Id. The majority of courts, as well as the majority of citizens, recognize that marriage laws are not rooted in hatred towards people who are sexually oriented toward homosexuality, nor are they designed to harm anyone else.
Read the entire case of Jackson v. Abercrombie, (in slip opinion form) from the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii here at http://www.adfmedia.org/files/AbercrombieSJorder.pdf , which was successfully argued by Regent Law alum Dale Schowengerdt with the Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of the Hawaii Family Forum. See his remarks at http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/News/PRDetail/5462. My scholarship on this topic can be accessed on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at http://ssrn.com/author=183817.
Marriage is rooted in family and absolutely necessary for family restoration, and now some federal judges are articulating that.
No comments:
Post a Comment