Support the Café
Search our site

Religion was trumped by biology this week before the US Supreme Court regarding marriage equality

Religion was trumped by biology this week before the US Supreme Court regarding marriage equality

Soon after the case for marriage equality was won before the Massachusetts Supreme Court, in 2003, conservatives, clergy and laypeople alike, began fighting against it on religious grounds; God had handed down marriage of one man and one woman from on high.

That argument wasn’t to be found this week in the case presented by John Bursch, representing those opposed to marriage equality. Mr Brosch’s answer to the question posed by Justice Breyer as why marriage should be denied to same gendered couples was that marriage as an institution arose from purposes biological in nature. Namely, that the chief aim of marriage is that it binds children to their parents.

To get a fuller sense of how much biology has displaced religion in the defense of the bans in constitutional discourse, the terms “biology” and “biological” were uttered 25 times at the Court, while “religion” and “religious” were uttered only 7 times.

It appears that the states opposed to equal marriage arguing before the court had learned a lesson from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) battles in the various states which had occurred in the weeks just prior to the Supreme Court hearing on marriage equality. Arguments based on religious opposition to same gendered marriages would mark the state bans unconstitutional.

The only time religion entered the discussion was when Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked if clergy in the states which allowed same gendered marriages have been required to officiate at marriage ceremonies. Mary Bonauto, representing the plaintiffs challenging the MI ban on same gendered marriage, affirmed to Justice Sotomayor that they did not. After which, Justice Antonin Scalia bumbled around with a confusing comment that if marriage equality weren’t made a constitutional issue, perhaps states could enlist clergy who couldn’t accept same gendered marriage to officiate. Ms Bonauto clarified for Justice Scalia that indeed clergy could not be required to perform marriages at which they did not wish to officiate, on First Amendment principles. Justice Scalia seemed to quietly acquiesce.

Read more regarding the biology argument here.

image from theliberaloc.com

posted by David Allen

Dislike (0)
0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

2 Comments
Newest
Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tobias Haller

The procreation argument doesn't meet the test of reason. It is one thing to say that children should be conceived and brought up by married couples; but there has never been a requirement that married couples be capable of procreation. Moreover, marriage has always been permitted even when it is known in advance that one or both of the couple are incapable of procreation.

Put simply, marriage has many other functions that warrant its position in society beyond providing a stable environment for the upbringing of children -- and adoption allows any couple incapable of procreation to do just that.

So this whole line of argument is utterly null.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
David Murray

Outside of those who believe a limited view of marriage, the arguments against equality of marriage simply make no sense. In so many ways, these arguments make as much sense as speaking out against marriage between persons of different races.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_001

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café