“A rational basis for marriage definition laws flows from the states’ substantial interest in protecting the rights of parents to supervise the development of their children. See Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 (1968). Parents who do not want their children to be taught that same-sex marriage is a good thing and a status to which they should aspire have a right to ask the states to respect their desires regarding their children’s upbringing.”
“A second rational basis for maintaining the opposite-sex nature of marriage is that imposing same-sex or genderless marriage at the constitutional level will unavoidably create strong pressure to redefine marriage further. This will include removal of the traditional understanding of marriage as involving two persons. Redefinition will also bring challenges against laws forbidding incestuous marriage.”
“Moreover, judicial redefinition of marriage usurps power from the political branches. This practice threatens democratic principles.”
The opposite-sex definition of marriage satisfies the rational basis test of equal protection or due process review. The Lighted Candle Society emphasizesthree rational bases. These and those presented in other briefs supporting affirmance are sufficient, however, to satisfy even strict scrutiny.
These rational bases apply not only to state laws such as those at issue here but also to the prerogative of states to decline to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states. Neither the Full Faith and Credit Clause nor the Equal Protection Clause requires a state to license or permit activities that violate its own legitimate public policies. 772 F.3d at 418-19.
First, the educational effect of law furnishes a strong rational basis for respecting and counting as constitutional state marriage definition laws. Law has an inevitable educational effect and changing the law to erase the opposite-sex nature of marriage will necessarily require that even small children be taught that same-sex marriage is a “good thing,” which voters and legislatures in most states have declined to do. Any change in these laws should be made through the political branches.
Second, a related rational basis for marriage definition laws flows from the states’ substantial interest in protecting the rights of parents to supervise the development of their children. See Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 (1968). Parents who do not want their children to be taught that same-sex marriage is a good thing and a status to which they should aspire have a right to ask the states to respect their desires regarding their children’s upbringing.
A third rational basis is that imposing same-sex or genderless marriage at the constitutional level will unavoidably create strong pressure to redefine marriage further. This will include removal of the traditional understanding of marriage as involving two persons. Redefinition will also bring challenges against laws forbidding incestuous marriage.
Some courts have erroneously concluded, borrowing language from Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), that laws defining marriage as opposite-sex in nature are invalid because they are based on “animus.” But the simple restatement of the traditional opposite-sex nature of marriage can hardly, after 6,000 years of recorded history, be found unconstitutional merely by reciting this pejorative label.
Moreover, judicial redefinition of marriage usurps power from the political branches. This practice threatens democratic principles.
Supreme Court Obergefell v. Hodges Amicus Briefs Filed by LCS Associates:
1. Dr. Judith Reisman, Liberty University
“MARRIAGE WAS NOT CREATED BY AND CANNOT BE REDEFINED BY LAW. The request to “define” or “redefine” marriage reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the institution, a misunderstanding that is exacerbated by societal changes spawned by Kinsey’s fraudulent research.”
Indoctrination in the Schools
“By asserting, by the power of the state, that any treatment of homosexuality in the schools cannot “reflect adversely” upon the gay community, and mandating that homosexual history be included in the teaching social sciences, the state of California has thus weaponized the schools into a compulsory propaganda machine which by design affords zero tolerance to dissenting view. In fact because the law mandates that NO instructional material may be adopted by the state which may “reflect adversely” upon homosexuals, the schools are being strong armed into adopting educational materials designed to teach personal health and family written and designed by homosexual groups. It is these groups of gay “experts” who will decided what material “reflects adversely” or not and therefore should be in the schools or banned for bigotry.”
In school districts throughout the country, the pansexual transformation of society has been stealthily making inroads into the minds of children. The latest manifestation of the decades-long revolution is the concept of “gender uncertainty,” labeled “gender identity,” now being integrated into non-discrimination policies, student codes of conduct and curriculum.
The record of those advancing a sexually explicit sex-ed curriculum makes clear that almost any treatment of sexuality is acceptable, a position this article and the Constitution rejects. As will be discussed below, such efforts have included an attack on minority rights and an effort to undermine traditional values among blacks. This article focuses on harms that are visited on children of every race, creed, and religious tradition, not because of the topic— that could be discussed in an age appropriate and careful way—but because a child or young person who views sexually explicit images suffers real harm. Moreover, for those minors raised in homes where traditional values are taught—which includes the vast majority of households in the United States–being trained to see and accept sexual text/imagery that their upbringing rejects undermines parental rights and creates conflicts between parents and their children. Such a destructive pedagogy arguably violates long-recognized Constitutional protections.
This presentation by Sharon Slater, President of Family Watch International, was given as part of the World Congress of Families XI in Budapest, Hungary, during the panel discussion entitled Family Advocacy at International Institutions. This presentation gave specific steps that anyone can take to stope Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) that is destroying families and individuals worldwide.
This research report contains a report estimating the economic costs to society from the damages of pornography. Also, the report contains first hand accounts of marriages and families devastated by pornography addiction.
This research report by Dr. Donald Hilton presents evidence of Pornography as an addiction and reviews how pornography damages the brain.
Sexuality and Gender
Few topics are as complex and controversial as human sexual orientation and gender identity. These matters touch upon our most intimate thoughts and feelings, and help to define us as both individuals and social beings. Discussions of the ethical questions raised by sexual orientation and gender identity can become heated and personal, and the associated policy issues sometimes provoke intense controversies. The disputants, journalists, and lawmakers in these debates often invoke the authority of science, and in our news and social media and our broader popular culture we hear claims about what “science says” on these matters.
This report offers a careful summary and an up-to-date explanation of many of the most rigorous findings produced by the biological, psychological, and social sciences related to sexual orientation and gender identity. We examine a vast body of scientific literature from several disciplines. We try to acknowledge the limitations of the research and to avoid premature conclusions that would result in over-interpretation of scientific findings. Since the relevant literature is rife with inconsistent and ambiguous definitions, we not only examine the empirical evidence but also delve into underlying conceptual problems. This report does not, however, discuss matters of morality or policy; our focus is on the scientific evidence—what it shows and what it does not show.