Robert George, the most influential anti-gay legal scholar in the country by a mile, gave an interview to the Christian Post in which he said he simply can’t believe that judges have not accepted the brilliant legal arguments he’s been making against marriage equality. That fact, of course, makes them all liberal activists who are ignoring the Constitution.
“The argument is very inconvenient, it gets in their way. They are in a headlong rush to redefine marriage for their own ideological purposes, so they refuse to engage the best arguments that are available on the other side, despite the fact that those arguments are being made,” he said…
Marriage is, and historically has been, the relationship that brings together man and woman as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children who are born of that union.
Not every marriage will produce a child, but every child has a mother and father and deserves to be known and loved by, and to be able to know and love, those parents who gave that child life. So, our marriage laws, our conjugal understanding of marriage, as embodied in our laws, has historically fulfilled the purpose of maximizing the chances, it doesn’t work every time, but it maximizes the chances that a child will be brought up with a very great blessing of knowing and being known by his mother and father in the marital bond, the loving bond of man and woman that brought that child into existence.
That’s the ideal. Now when the ideal doesn’t happen, we have ways of dealing with that. Adoption, for example, is a wonderful way the we have historically provided, where possible, a mother and father to orphan children. There are ways we deal with the cases where the ideal cannot be realized. But we want the ideal to be realized as much as possible for the sake of children, boys and girls, who do best when brought up in the loving bond of their mother and father.
Studies show that children raised by more affluent parents are statistically more likely to have good outcomes as adults, for instance, but we do not forbid poor people from marrying or having children. Studies show that people who are more educated and don’t have a criminal record make better parents, but we don’t even ask whether a couple seeking to get married have a college degree or a criminal record. The judge in the Michigan case noted that if we were actually to apply that logic consistently, we would only allow wealthy Asian parents to get married and have children. These arguments have been made and they’ve been engaged and debunked.
George also argues that it’s wrong to use the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause to justify approving same-sex marriage because the framers of that amendment did not anticipate that it would be used that way. But if that argument is to be taken seriously, George must also argue against the result in Loving v Virginia and say that the court was wrong to strike down bans on interracial marriage, because not only did the framers of the 14th Amendment not anticipate that outcome, they explicitly said that the equal protection clause would not affect such laws. Wanna place a bet on whether George is consistent in his argument here? I’d be willing to bet he would not be.