

"Equal Justice Under Law" is carved into the facade of the United States Supreme Court building. / Chip Somodevilla Getty Images

While there are many possible outcomes in the Supreme Court's handling of the Proposition 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry) and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (U.S. v. Windsor) cases, the most likely outcome is the court will uphold the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and DOMA.


The court could certainly resolve the Perry case without determining whether the Fourteenth Amendment provides a right to gay marriage. But having granted review, it's much more likely the court is going to address the core issue. Had they wanted Prop 8 to be invalidated, they could simply have refused to grant review. Instead, they've sent a strong signal they'll uphold Proposition 8, as the history of federal jurisprudence and common sense requires.

And if states have the right to define marriage, doesn't the federal government have that same right? It's the constitutional duty of our elected officials to decide what burden taxpayers bear in dealing with same-sex couples. Federal laws encourage men and women to marry and have children because society has a profound interest in ensuring that children are born (to continue society) and then raised by their parents to become responsible adults.

It is not unconstitutional for the government to treat different things differently. Whatever one thinks about homosexual relationships, they are not the same as the male/female relationship in their potential for creating children, which is why we have laws encouraging marriage in the first place.

John Eastman is chairman of the National Organization for Marriage and the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University School of Law.


Copyright 2014

Read the original story: Column: Federal government can define marriage too

More In

Join Our Team!


Gannett Careers

Things To Do

See all Events


Special Sections
