Legal Summary #2-15: Amicus Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court by FPIO in support of natural marriage and the best interest of children.

03-Jun-2015

SUMMARY

In April 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Obergefell v. Hodges to decide if states would retain control of a state's marriage and domestic policy or if states would be required to allow same-sex weddings against the will of the people of that state who voted to define marriage between one man and one woman as has been the norm in Western Civilization for millenia. To help the U.S. Supreme Court justices understand the gravity of their decision as it pertains to the best interests of children, the Family Policy Institute of Oklahoma, joined by the Christian Medical Association, filed an Amicus Brief.


The main argument of the Amicus Brief explains that the State best serves children when it adopts policies that promote biological homes. Natural marriage laws do just that. The preeminent purpose of marriage – and the overriding reason why the government recognizes marriage – is to connect children to both of their biological parents. But redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will, for various reasons, lead to more children being raised apart from one or both biological parents. If marriage is transformed further in this way, over time, increasing numbers of children will be deprived of the enormous advantages of being raised in a stable, biological home and, as a result, will suffer a range of harms. Additionally, such a redefinition will facilitate the severance of intergenerational connections to a child's ancestral heritage that play a powerful role in one's self development and well-being. The State's effort to avoid these harms by retaining the natural man-woman definition of marriage fits squarely within the State's broad authority over its domestic-relations policies.