By Senator Don Huffines
For thousands of years, marriage has been an institution between one man and one woman. This has been broadly understood by national and state laws, by churches, and by everyday individuals. Now, thanks to the whims of five Washington D.C. jurists with lifelong appointments, that definition of marriage is in jeopardy. This, despite the laws of 41 states, including Texas. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell is wrong on the Constitution, wrong on policy, and wrong on process: marriage should be governed at the state level. For that cause, I will fight.
As recently as 2012, Justice Kennedy recognized states’ inherent authority to define marriage. In 2012, Justice Kennedy recognized the historical gravity of states’ authority: “[t]he significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning.” Kennedy continues, writing for the majority: “The definition of marriage [is] the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the ‘[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.’” In comparing the Anthony Kennedy of 2012 and 2015, we must scratch in our heads in disbelief, mouth agape at the sheer extent of his radical transformation on a matter of such serious judicial, legal, and religious importance to so many Americans.
Justice Scalia fully appreciates the folly of the 2015 majority opinion in Obergefell. In a stinging rebuttal, he writes that the majority’s "decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact… of the Court’s claimed power to create ‘liberties' that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.”
I firmly believe the Supreme Court got it right in Windsor and wrong in Obergefell.
Justice Kennedy’s whiplash-inducing change of heart on marriage will bear grave consequences for future generations to an extent that we cannot currently comprehend. What is the end game, and what is the end result? To what kind of unconscionable things have we opened the door? What are the implications for religious Texans who believe homosexuality is a sin? What happens to First Amendment speech and religious liberty? As George Wiegel has noted, “those who resist trashing the moral patrimony of humanity are dismissed as irrational bigots, religious fanatics, or both.”
The 84th Legislature anticipated at least one of these questions with the Pastor Protection Act - which allows churches and clergy to refuse to solemnize a gay marriage if doing so would violate a sincerely held religious belief of the organization or the individual. I was proud to co-author this bill. However, many other questions remain, and we must thoughtfully consider those questions and develop answers before the start of the next legislative session in 2017.
As a legislator, I am guided by my conviction that marriage is a bond between one man and one woman. My values are informed by my Roman Catholic faith. I believe that children need and deserve both a father and a mother in their lives. The union of man and woman is a special one because it can lead to the birth of children, and deserves special protection and consideration by society. Furthermore, it is my firm belief that the First Amendment protects the rights of Americans to peacefully practice their religion according to the dictates of their conscience, and without government interference. I still believe these things, but the Supreme Court’s judicial fiat means we have to renew the fight for traditional marriage and fight for religious freedom.
Conservatives in Texas - both in the Legislature and across the state - will not stand for this short-sighted and impulsive usurpation of our definition of traditional marriage. I don’t know how the fight for traditional marriage and religious liberty will look, or what it will entail, but I know it is unquestionably worth fighting.
