“What Is Marriage?”

This is the question that must be answered before the country decides–or the judges presume to decide for us–that the institution must be expanded to include same-sex couples.  In a brilliant and comprehensive new article (with this question as its title) in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson present an eloquent, compelling answer to the question, show the grounding in nature itself for conjugal marriage, and rebut all the objections commonly made by advocates of same-sex unions.  Here’s a sample:

     Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition.  So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place.  That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages.  So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded. . . .

     Some revisionists say that marriage is merely a social and legal construct, but their appeals to equality undermine this claim  The principle of equality requires treating like cases alike.  So the judgment that same-sex and opposite-sex unions are alike with respect to marriage, and should therefore be treated alike by marriage law, presupposes one of two things: Either neither relationship is a real marriage . . ., perhaps because there is no such thing, marriage being just a legal fiction . . ., or both relationships are real marriages, whatever the law says about them.  The latter presupposition entails the belief, which most revisionists seem to share with advocates of the conjugal view, that marriage has a nature independent of legal conventions.  In this way, the crucial question–the only one that can settle this debate–remains for both sides: What is marriage?

This article is must reading for all those concerned with the course of public–and judicial–deliberation on the future of marriage in America.  Girgis, George, and Anderson write with a fluidity and grace that are rare in legal journals, too.  All federal judges, and especially all Supreme Court justices, should study the argument with care.  Get your copy here.

Matthew J. Franck — Matthew J. Franck is the Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Broward’s Cowards

It is impossible to imagine circumstances under which Broward County sheriff Scott Israel could attempt to perform his duties with the confidence of the public. He should resign immediately, and if, as he promises, he refuses to go quietly, then he should be shown the door by the people he professes to ... Read More

Courage: The Greatest of Virtues

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays. Dear Reader (Or Listener), As the reporter assigned the job of writing the article about all of Sidney Blumenthal’s friends and supporters told his ... Read More

My American Dream

This morning, at 8 a.m., I did something I’ve wanted to do for as long as I can remember: I became an American. I first applied for a visa in early 2011, and since then I have slowly worked my way through the system — first as a visa-holder, then as a permanent resident (green card), and, finally, as a ... Read More
Politics & Policy

CNN’s Shameful Town Hall

CNN recently hosted an anti-gun town hall featuring a number of grieving children and parents from Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., who aimed their ire at the National Rifle Association, politicians peripherally associated with the NRA, and anyone who didn’t say exactly what they wanted to hear. ... Read More

The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More