Public debate, not a handful of justices, should define marriage

The Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments this week on two cases that may determine the future of marriage in America. Though the nation will have to wait until early summer for the decisions, the arguments that will be made are important to Hawaii right now.

First, Jackson v. Abercrombie, the federal case challenging Hawaii’s marriage protection law filed in 2011, is currently on appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but on hold while the high court considers Hollingsworth v. Perry, the “Proposition 8 case.”

Second, there is a chance, though slim, that the Supreme Court could find a federal “right” to same-sex marriage, which would void every state marriage protection law and constitutional amendment, including Hawaii’s.

What is important to keep in mind is that the union between one man and one woman — marriage — is timeless, universal and special. Throughout history, diverse cultures and faiths have upheld marriage as the ideal. Marriage is the fundamental building block for all of human civilization.

Protecting marriage is society’s time-tested way to bless as many children as possible with both a mom and a dad. Moms and dads are both necessary for the optimal setting to raise a child.  Neither a mom nor a dad is replaceable by a generic “adult.” Marriage upholds the truth that children need a mom and a dad, and encourages the establishment of homes with both a mom and a dad.

Government recognizes marriage because it benefits society in a way that no other relationship does.

Marriage is the one and only social institution centered on the well-being of children. The uniqueness of the union is the reason marriage was established. The lifelong, faithful union of husband and wife promotes healthy, natural families for the common good today and for future generations. Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.

Marriage is society’s least restrictive means to ensure the well-being of children, while respecting everyone’s freedom to form their own relationships. Marriage is based on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Marriage predates government. It is the fundamental building block of all human civilization.

Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes.

Advocates for redefining marriage possess massive political, cultural and social firepower. The most recent briefs filed on their behalf by hundreds of large companies and the Obama administration prove that these activists are very powerful and do not require special judicial protection. Same-sex marriage advocates continually insist that the tide of history is in their favor. This claim contradicts the demand they make for judicial protection typically offered to the powerless. 

Plainly, same-sex marriage advocates are more than capable of winning political battles for themselves and do not need special judicial protection. Advocates for redefining marriage should not be allowed to do an end run on the democratic process to accomplish their political objectives. And these activists should not be allowed to convert marriage from an institution centered on the needs of children to an institution focused on the desires of adults.

The Supreme Court should resist demands to prematurely end the national debate over the future of marriage. The court shouldn’t attempt to silence the debate, but should let it go on. The court should respect the freedom of citizens to affirm the bedrock social institution that diverse cultures and faiths have honored throughout the history of Western civilization. 

The Supreme Court should allow the public to decide — as a society — the future of marriage. No matter what you might think about how marriage should be defined, can’t we all come together and agree that marriage, as a public institution, shouldn’t be redefined by a few judges, but through a spirited debate among the people?