Home > Jennifer Roback Morse, Proposition 8, Same Sex Marriage > Disappointed, but Not Surprised: Aleteia Experts React to Supreme Court Marriage Rulings

Disappointed, but Not Surprised: Aleteia Experts React to Supreme Court Marriage Rulings

June 27th, 2013

By: Brantly Millegan

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional under the 5th amendment, meaning that the federal government must recognize all state marriages for the purposes of applying federal law. The Court did not issue a ruling on California’s Proposition 8 and instead dismissed the case saying that those defending the law did not have the legal right to do so.We asked our Aleteia Experts for reactions. Reactions will be updated throughout the day as they come in.

Jennifer Morse, founder and president of the Ruth Institute

“The Supreme Court ruled that the proponents of Prop 8 had no standing to defend it in federal court.”I was a spokeswoman for Prop 8. We spent $40 million on it. We had 70,000 individual contributors from all walks of life and all income levels. We had 100,000 volunteers, from across the religious spectrum. Our masters in Sacramento don’t agree with our views. So, when some Hollywood leftists invent absurd legal challenges to Prop 8, our masters in Sacramento refuse to defend it. Surprise, surprise.

“And now the Supreme Court tells us to sit down and shut up.

“I do not plan to be silent. The scorched earth tactics of the Sexual Revolutionaries are now taking down democracy itself. This is too high a price to pay for the supposed benefits of sexual ‘freedom.'”

…

Anthony Esolen, literature professor at Providence College and senior editor for Touchstone

“The decision means that the people of the United States, as a whole, have no power to make laws affecting the most fundamental institution in a society, directing the most intimate relations between human beings, and arising from the one thing about which any adult human being must know a great deal, namely the family.

“The decision purports to protect the states against the federal government — a protection very rarely offered in the last century and more; but the aim of DOMA was to protect one state from another, and the very institution of marriage from dilapidation. The people who passed DOMA were concerned that a “marriage” in North Carolina would have to be regarded as such in Virginia, regardless of the understanding of marriage prevailing in that state. It was on such grounds as these that the entry of Utah into the Union was made conditional upon that territory’s rejection of polygamy. For if polygamy is accepted in one state, and if it therefore must be accepted by the federal government for the apportioning of federal benefits, then in effect it becomes legal everywhere, since each state must affirm the contracts made in other states.”

Categories: Jennifer Roback Morse, Proposition 8, Same Sex Marriage Tags: , , ,
Comments are closed.