Annotated Bibliography on Three issues related to Same-Sex Marriage and its Redefinition

Comparing the Same-Sex Marriage debate to the American Civil Rights Movement is a Bad Analogy

    • Whatever one’s views of marriage and however the state defines it, there is no compelling state interest in forcing all citizens to facilitate, participate in, or celebrate a same-sex relationship as a marriage. Believing that marriage is the union of man and woman is a reasonable position held by many. Bans on interracial marriage, by contrast, were grossly unreasonable. Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not restrict anyone’s freedom to enter into whatever romantic partnerships he or she wishes. Americans should remain free to speak and act in the public square based on their belief that marriage is the union of a man and woman without fear of government penalty. No one should demand that government coerce others into celebrating their relationships.
  • Same-Sex Marriage and the Civil Rights Movement: A Problematic Analogy by Carson Holloway
    • “Those who see the movement for same-sex marriage as today’s civil-rights struggle are abusing historical reason and our national institutions.”
  • Civil Rights and Marriage by Ryan T. Anderson
    • “While respecting everyone’s civil rights, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage between a man and a woman as the ideal institution for procreative love, childbearing, and child-rearing. Recognizing that we are all created equal doesn’t challenge this historical understanding”
  • Same-Sex Marriage and Interracial Marriage: Not the Same Thing by Carson Holloway
    • “Proponents of same-sex marriage often liken opposition to the bigotry that defended anti-miscegenation laws, preventing interracial couples from marrying. The analogy is specious, for the two movements differ entirely in motivation. One seeks to defend an intelligible understanding of marriage; the other sought to achieve racial purity.”
  • Same-Sex Marriage and Formal Discrimination by  David Schaengold
    • “Another reason the analogy between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage fails.”
  • Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage by  Francis J. Beckwith
    • “While doing research for an academic paper on the topic of same-sex marriage and political liberalism, I was struck by how many authors, including judges, draw an analogy between bans on interracial marriage and the present law in almost every state in the United States that recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”
  • Bake us A Cake, or Else! by Ryan T. Anderson & Leslie Fordby Ryan T. Anderson & Leslie Ford
    • “For years now, a central argument of those in favor of same-sex marriage has been that all Americans should be free to live and love how they choose. But does that freedom require the government to coerce those who disagree into celebrating same-sex relationships?  A growing number of incidents show that the redefinition of marriage and state policies on sexual orientation have created a climate of intolerance and intimidation for citizens who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage. Now comes government coercion and discrimination. Laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity are being used to trump fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.”


  • Why Bakers Should Be Free to Discriminate by Alec Torres
    • Keep in mind that the bakeries that got in trouble — Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado and Sweet Cakes in Oregon — did not refuse service because of their customers’ sexual orientation, but because of ethical opposition to participating in a particular act, namely a same-sex wedding. Judges in both cases declared the bakeries had unjustly discriminated and delivered an ultimatum: Bake the cake or else. National Review wanted to find out what happens when you ask a bakery for a sugary tribute to an institution just about nobody likes. Would bakeries be willing to make a cake with a Nazi swastika on it? This was done not in an effort to imply some false moral equivalency between Nazism and same-sex marriage, but rather to show that bakers may have good faith objections even to reproducing a symbol.
  • Homosexual Jim Crow Laws? Get Real! By Ryan T. Anderson
    • “They protect what should be already protected: basic civil liberties such as freedom of association, freedom of contract, and freedom of religion. Jim Crow and segregation did the exact opposite. Those wicked regimes legally coerced people to keep them separated, to prevent them from associating or contracting. Yet today, we see liberals of various stripes saying the law should coerce people into associating and contracting. But freedom of association and freedom of contract are two-way streets. They entail the freedom to choose whom to associate with and when and on what terms; whom to contract with and for what goods. Governmental mandates that force association or prevent association violate these freedoms. If a central argument of the LGBT movement has been the freedom to live how one chooses sexually, shouldn’t government respect the freedom of citizens to live how they choose in the marketplace? Indeed, respecting religious liberty for all those in the marketplace is particularly important. After all, as first lady Michelle Obama put it: “Our faith journey isn’t just about showing up on Sunday for a good sermon and good music and a good meal. It’s about what we do Monday through Saturday as well.” The state’s concern for the freedom of its citizens to live out their beliefs about marriage is not unwarranted.”


The Consequences of Redefining Marriage

  • Marriage: What it is, Why it Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining it By Ryan T. Anderson
    • Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.
    • 100 academic scholars submit data regarding the breakdown of marriage once the country or state redefines marriage. Measurable losses in those who become married are seen across the world once it is changed. This is bad for children in general.
  • Redefining Marriage Would Put Kids of Heterosexuals at Risk by by Gene Schaerr
    • “The metamorphosis of marriage from a gendered to a genderless institution would send the message that society no longer needs men to bond to women to form well-functioning families or to raise happy, well-adjusted children. That would be bad news for children of heterosexuals on the margins: the poor, the relatively uneducated, the irreligious, and others who are susceptible to cultural messages promoting casual or uncommitted sex.”
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of Infertility and Marriage in Support of Respondents – to the Supreme Court in Obergefell v Hodges
    • “We point to the the actual experience of states and nations that have adopted a genderless redefinition of marriage, to declare that such a redefinition would erode the role of marriage in our society, ultimately leading to fewer marriages and fewer births.”
  • Marriage Matters: for Kids, for Parents, and for Religious Liberty by Maggie Gallagher
    • “Marriage between a man and a woman is rooted in our nature–“in biology, not bigotry”–sex between men and women makes babies, society needs babies, and babies need a father as well as a mother. But the proponents of same-sex marriage want the government to declare in law that there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex unions, and anyone who thinks otherwise is promoting bigotry. This will have major ramifications for those who believe in marriage in the traditional sense–especially religious citizens and organizations.”
  • The Research on Same-Sex Parenting: “No Difference” No More By Jamie Bryan Hall
    • “In its 2004 endorsement of what is commonly referred to as the “no differences” theory, the American Psychological Association (APA) declared that “there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children,” and “research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.”[1] … These conclusions have been cited in numerous amicus briefs filed in court cases, including Obergefell v. Hodges,[2] the marriage case scheduled to be argued before the Supreme Court on April 28, 2015. In recent years, however, this position has been contradicted by more rigorous studies indicating that children raised by parents in a same-sex relationship face greater emotional, developmental, and other difficulties than those raised by mothers and fathers, particularly by their married biological parents.”
  • Same-Sex Parenting: Unpacking the Social Science by John B. Londregan
  • “For some people, scientific research on the subject of same-sex parenting is irrelevant. A new volume is meant for those who still approach the topic of parenting and sexuality with open minds. According to the best data, average life outcomes for children raised by parents in same-sex relationships tend to resemble those of children raised by single and divorced parents.”
  • How the Indiana Pizza Shop Responded After being Tricked into ‘Catering’ a Gay Wedding by Travis Weber
    • “Much of the media today roundly disparage any business-person who even voices his or her religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage. This is the consistent narrative by which many presumptuously judge small business owners’ (often wedding vendors) motives in affirming their religious convictions as animating their business lives.”


The Constitution and Judicial Activism

  • The Constitutionality of Traditional Marriage By John C. Eastman
    • “In United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of government policies that reflect traditional marriage—that is, marriage as a union between one man and one woman. If the Court does not dismiss these cases on jurisdictional grounds, it should act to uphold traditional marriage. Nothing in the Court’s jurisprudence suggests that the right of same-sex couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages is so fundamental as to be protected by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Nor does the Equal Protection Clause require that result, given the societal purpose and value of marriage as furthering procreation and child-rearing. Because the Constitution does not speak to this question, it is one that is left to ordinary political processes, not to judicial fiat.”
  • Court Rules that Marriage must be redefined under 14th Why that’s Wrong. By Ryan T. Anderson
  • The Supreme Court and the Future of Marriage by Ryan T. Anderson
    • “In a 5–4 majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court in S. v. Windsor struck down section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage in federal law for federal policy as the union of one man and one woman. The Court held that the federal government has to accept state redefinitions of marriage for federal policies…The majority concluded its opinion by stating: “This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.” So while the federal government has been ordered to recognize all state-recognized marriages, the Court declared that “the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States.” The states remain free—and should continue—to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman…The Court got the case wrong.[1] While there is little of value in the majority opinion, the three dissenting opinions signal the path that marriage proponents should take from here.”
  • Conservative” Judicial Activism for Gay Marriage: With Amici Like These, Who Needs Enemies? by  Micah Watson
    • “A group of distinguished conservative public servants, policy makers, and political operatives has signed an amicus brief saying the US Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage. They argue that this is the truly conservative position—but it takes quite a bit of logical contortion to accept their argument.”
  • Citizens United and the Problem of Modern Judicial Activism by Carson Holloway
    • “A political scientist explains why the concept of “strict scrutiny” is alien to the Constitution and why it poses a threat to a constitutionally defensible judicial review.”
  • Constitutional Disorder in an Era of Judicial Supremacy: The Founders Understanding of the Court by Matthew J. Franck
    • “Judicial supremacy is inimical to the separation of powers, to republicanism, and even to constitutionalism and the rule of law. The upcoming confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor should force citizens to reconsider the place of the Court in our political life. The first in a two-part series.”
  • Constitutional Disorder in an Era of Judicial Supremacy: What can be Done Now by Matthew J. Franck
    • “If we want to lower the stakes of winner-take-all Supreme Court battles, we must search for justices who reject the notions of judicial activism and judicial supremacy. The second in a two-part series.”
  • Originalism and Judicial Restraint by Gregory J. Sullivan
    • “Originalism must guard against an overconfident reliance on history. Restraint and judicial caution are needed in an age of judicial overreaching.”
  • The Unsoundness of Judicial Supremacy by Paul R. DeHart
    • “Decisions of the Supreme Court that go beyond power delegated to the judicial branch or are contrary to the Constitution are null and void. To protect our constitutional republic, citizens, states, and the other branches of the federal government must resist any such decision.”
  • Constitutionalism Rejects Judicial Supremacy By Carson Holloway
    • “Conservatives should defend the Constitution and the rule of law, but they should not defend judicial supremacy. The Constitution—not the Supreme Court—is our country’s highest authority.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s