An excerpt from a Ryan T. Anderson commentary on The Daily Signal:
Those suing to overturn male-female marriage laws thus have to prove that the Constitution prohibits the man–woman marriage policy that has existed in the United States throughout our entire history … which they cannot successfully argue.
Nor is the debate over whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships like the debate over interracial marriage. Race has absolutely nothing to do with marriage, and there were no reasonable arguments ever suggesting it did.
Laws that banned interracial marriage were unconstitutional, and the Court was right to strike them down. But laws that define marriage as the union of a man and woman are constitutional, and the Court shouldn’t strike them down.
Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife, as well as to be father and mother to any children their union produces. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.
Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.
FOR THE REST OF HIS COMMENTARY: Citizens, Not Judges, Should Determine Future of Marriage.