Presently, there is a movement to change America’s laws on what constitutes marriage; a movement to redefine marriage itself. Every state that has a constitutional amendment confirming that marriage is between one man and one woman, has seen their state constitution challenged by pro-LGBT groups like the ACLU.2 Many have already lost that challenge in Federal District Courts.3
The Defense of Marriage Act, enacted in 1996, originally served as a protection for marriage, but was recently nullified by United States v. Windsor. In this case, the U.S. Attorney General refused to defend section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).4 This choice was not legally unusual in itself because “the Department of Justice has submitted many [section]530D letters over the years refusing to defend laws it deems unconstitutional.”5 But, “this case is unusual, however, because the [section]530D letter was not preceded by an adverse judgment. The letter instead reflected the Executive’s own conclusion, relying on a definition still being debated and considered in the courts.”6 Since the Executive Branch would not defend the United States, the House of Representatives Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) stepped in to defend the DOMA in this case.7 In this case, the Supreme Court noted that, “It seems fair to conclude that, until recent years, many citizens had not even considered the possibility that two persons of the same sex might aspire to occupy the same status and dignity as that of a man and woman in lawful marriage. For marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of the term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization.”8
Regardless, the Supreme Court found the DOMA in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opened up the floodgates to the aforementioned challenges to State Constitutions even though the opinion of the Supreme Court stressed that marriage laws are in the purview of individual states as seen in Section III of the majority opinion.9
President Clinton signed the DOMA into law yet still cannot get much credit for helping put good domestic policy into place. Arguably, President Clinton was not very interested in the DOMA, nor did he think it was good law. The high majority of Congress members that passed this law made a veto unlikely if not impossible and President Clinton followed the path of least resistance.
President Obama, who originally held that marriage was between one man and one woman,10 has had his view on marriage “evolve” and he currently takes the stance for same-sex “marriage”.11 He concretely defined his new stance in 2012 with a highly personal and relativistic view of homosexuality and marriage.
“I have to tell you that over the course of several year as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”12
He has then applied this to his policies and, as a result, the U.S. Attorney General did not defend the DOMA in court. This is a good example of bad domestic policy. Not only is President Obama flying in the face of morality, natural law, and the Constitution’s ideals, he is pushing a domestic policy because he personally thinks that “same-sex couples should be able to get married.”13 Domestic policy should not be implemented because of an individual’s view point, even the President’s. Domestic policy should be in accordance with the Constitution, natural law, and the common good, all of which the DOMA adheres to.
America’s founders acknowledged the extreme importance of morality in our society. Benjamin Franklin said, “Laws without morals are in vain.”14 President George Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”15 President James Madison stated, “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.”16 And, most importantly, it was both implicitly and explicitly acknowledged by the Declaration of Independence that natural law and a Creator’s law define morality; an absolute morality contained within the statement “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”.17
As such, the Constitution and the subsequent governing body of the United States implicitly embody and are founded upon the belief in natural law and objective morality. Due to this, the Founders never even thought to include explicit language defining marriage as that between one man and one woman because anything beyond this is contrary to natural law and thereby foreign to America’s fundamental principles. As preached by Aristotle, “the irreducible core of a polity is the family. Thus, Aristotle begins his Politics…with a description of a man and a woman together in a family, without which the rest of society cannot exist.”18
The goodness of DOMA gets its goodness from the institution it defends; as marriage is good, so too is the defense of marriage. This is not to say that DOMA is itself goodness nor it is perfect law. It is, however, a man made law — which implies at least some imperfection — that follows the Constitution, the American Founders, and, most importantly, is affirmed by what is already known from both natural law and divine (revealed) law. Though it is unfortunate that such a naturally obvious law, that marriage is rightly between one man and one woman, had to be defined and defended, it showed foresight by American leaders when this act was signed into law. Ideally, the true definition of marriage should have been made, and still should be made, a constitutional amendment at the highest level instead of just an amendment in most state’s constitutions so as to avoid the exact scenario that is occurring today in the Supreme Court. The importance of marriage, and therefore the DOMA, is again drawn from Aristotle’s thoughts. “The family is the prepolitical institution. The state does not make marriage possible; marriage makes the state possible (emphasis added).”19
As Cicero stated over two thousand years ago, “Neither the Senate nor the Assembly can exempt us from [the natural law].”20 For modern America, the term “President” or “Supreme Court” could be added and it would still retain its truthfulness. The Defense of Marriage Act was good domestic policy because it was in line with what is good, what is true, what constitutes true law. Actions taken to tear down the DOMA do not make marriage something other than one man and one woman any more than Nazi Germany’s beliefs about the Jews made the Jewish people less than human.
Man does not actually make law; he merely affirms the natural order put into place by his Creator. President Obama defies this, seeks to create faux law according to his personal beliefs, and, as such, produces bad domestic policy. Regardless of what the American President thinks, good laws cannot be contrary to natural law, the nature of man, or divine law. It is only through acknowledging truth that good laws can be produced. We are also waiting to see if the court system will uphold true law, or if it will continue to circumvent truth along with the President.
It is arbitrary that the President helped shoot down the DOMA and that he believes in homosexual marriage; his beliefs and actions do not make homosexual marriage truly lawful; his view merely affirms vice as good thereby negating his own authority because he contradicts natural law and the U.S. Constitution. It was never intended for that the U.S. President or Supreme Court to act against true law.
However, the Founders warned against such a possibility and fought against this very tyranny once embodied in the unlawful actions of King George III. They tell us, “We hold these truths to be self-evident…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”21 What does that mean for America today? What does this mean should the Supreme Court deny true law and force upon the American people an improper definition of marriage? 1 Robert R. Reilly. Making Gay Okay. 2014. Ignatius Press: San Francisco. 2 Zane Williamson. “The U.S. Attorney General v. Marriage.” Freedom’s Discourse.” 2014. 3 Ibid. 4 “United States v. Windsor.” The Supreme Court of the United States. Accessed June 22nd, 2014. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Robert R. Reilly. Making Gay Okay. 2014. Ignatius Press: San Francisco. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 J. David Gowdy. “Quotes on Liberty and Virtue.” The Washington, Jefferson, and Madison Institute. 2014. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 The Declaration of Independence. 18 Robert R. Reilly. Making Gay Okay. 2014. Ignatius Press: San Francisco. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 The Declaration of Independence.
It is Zane's great love of writing and of thinking that brought him to this site; he is truly a lover of wisdom. Though his thoughts are generally unimpressive, he still seeks to write and understand truth. He heard once that being a writer means simply being someone who writes. They might be a lousy writer, but they are a writer none-the-less by nature of their actions. Zane hopes this adage holds true for philosophy as well, for Zane will happily settle being a lousy writer and a poor philosopher until the day he dies. His wife, on the other hand, might not.
Comments