Will that be the most compelling argument, giving some Supreme Court justices some cover, in the end? It was Jennifer Roback Morse’s plea during remarks at a rally for marriage yesterday in Washington. Noting, not far away from where the March for Life began in January, that this year marks the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, she said: “We are gathered here to send one simple message to the Justices of the Supreme Court: allow the conversation about marriage to continue. Do not try to short circuit the debate over marriage the way Roe v Wade short circuited the debate over life.”
“We need to keep talking about the meaning of marriage,” Morse, president of the Ruth Institute, said.
Recalling the March for Life, she highlighted the youth of the movement in its 40th year, estimating the average age of a Marcher being about 17.
“The Life Movement is a youth movement,” Morse said. “Why? Because young people eventually figured out that abortion set aside the interests of children for the convenience of adults.”
“Eventually,” she surmised, “young people will figure out that redefining marriage sets aside the interests of children for the convenience of adults.”
Raising the possibility of losing in the Court, she assured the crowd and anyone within the sound of its speakers:
The Marriage Movement isn’t going away, America.
Win, lose or draw at the Supreme Court: the Marriage Movement is here to stay.
Here to keep thinking of the children.
Here to be the conscience of America.
Forty years from now, it will be clear to everyone that Marriage, one man, one woman for life, is the right side of history.
That, of course, as Paul Clement noted today, will take some persuasion. Some witness, too. Efforts to support marriage culturally and political have crept up lately. This is good. But what marriage is ought to be a part of the deliberations. Doesn’t gender have something to do with it?