Courts and marriage, courts and marriage; they go together like a cat and carriage. With the Supreme Court possibly poised to strike down the remaining state bans on official recognition of same-sex relationships, it’s lamentable, but important to note, that things have gone this far only because of a universal failure to acknowledge and argue the central point in the faux-marriage debate. This is not merely that, as our Constitution dictates, marriage is no business of the feds. It is something more fundamental, something informing that — except insofar as a state constitution may contain marriage prescriptions — it is, in fact, no business of any court.
If I stated that homosexuals already have a right to marry — to form a matrimonial union with a member of the opposite sex — faux marriage advocates will certainly disagree with the italicized definition. “Who are you to define marriage for...
