Conservative Christians React to the Supreme Court’s Decision on Marriage

U.S. Supreme Court building.

U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Today the U.S. Supreme Court announced their decision on the definition of marriage. Below is some of the reaction from leading Conservative Christian attorneys who have been involved in, or very closely following the case.

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Austin R. Nimocks had this to say,

“Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, the debate over marriage has only
just begun. The court’s decision does not silence the voices of
Americans. Marriage–the union of husband and wife–will remain
timeless, universal, and special, particularly because children need
mothers and fathers. This has been the experience of diverse cultures
and faiths throughout history, including the American experience, and
that will not change. Americans will continue
advancing the truth about marriage between a man and a woman and why it
matters for children, civil society, and limited government.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council released the following statement,

we are disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down part
of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the court today did not
impose the sweeping nationwide redefinition of natural marriage that was
sought. Time is not on the side of those seeking to create same-sex
‘marriage.’ As the American people are given time to experience the
actual consequences of redefining marriage, the public debate and
opposition to the redefinition of natural marriage will undoubtedly

“We are encouraged that the court learned from the disaster of Roe v. Wade
and refrained from redefining marriage for the entire country.
However, by striking down the federal definition of marriage in DOMA,
the Court is asserting that Congress does not have the power to define
the meaning of words in statutes Congress itself has enacted. This is
absurd. The Defense of Marriage Act imposes no uniform
definition of marriage upon the individual states. However, the states
should not be able to impose varying definitions of marriage upon the
federal government. The ruling that the federal government must
recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ in states that recognize them raises as
many questions as it answers. For example, what is the status of such
couples under federal law if they move to another state that does not
recognize their ‘marriage?’ This decision throws open the doors for
whole new rounds of litigation.

are disturbed that the court refused to acknowledge that the proponents
of Proposition 8 have standing to defend Proposition 8. This
distorts the balance of powers between the legislative, executive, and
judicial branches of government. The Court’s decision allows the
executive branch to effectively veto any duly enacted law, simply by
refusing to defend it against a constitutional challenge. Ironically, by
refusing to defend the law, California’s executive branch has also
denied the nation any definitive ruling on the constitutionality of
defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

is inevitable is that the male and female relationship will continue to
be uniquely important to the future of society. The reality is that
society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad. We will
continue to work to restore and promote a healthy marriage culture,
which will maximize the chances of a child being raised by a married
mother and father,” Perkins concluded.

will discuss the Court’s decision today on his daily radio show,
Washington Watch, heard daily from 5-6 p.m. Eastern on the American
Family Radio network and online at

Ken Klukowski, J.D. attended oral arguments. He co-authored a legal
brief in the marriage litigation. FRC’s Chris Gacek, J.D., Ph.D., worked
with Paul B. Linton, J.D. of the Thomas More Society on FRC’s amicus
briefs in the DOMA and Prop 8 cases.

FRC’s Defense of Marriage Act amicus brief:

FRC’s Proposition 8 amicus brief:


“Today is a tragic day for marriage and our nation. The Supreme Court has dealt a profound injustice to the American people…The Court got it wrong.”


Human Life International President Father Shenan J. Boquet had the following comments on today’s ruling,


“Since marriage is an institution that predates any government, the nature and definition of marriage were never in doubt, and thus could not justly be changed by any court or vote,” said Father Boquet. “Marriage still is, and has always been, a covenant by which one man and one woman establish a partnership for life that is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children.”

“We must continue to demand that our political leaders recognize and protect this most natural institution especially in this time of intense bigotry and discrimination toward those who defend marriage in the public square,” said Father Boquet.

“Most Americans know that this debate over marriage will never ultimately be settled by the Court, for at least two reasons,” said Father Boquet. “First, those who are leading the assault on marriage have demonstrated again and again their disdain for laws that defend marriage and for the will of those with whom they disagree. Theirs is a crusade against both faith and reason, and they are no more likely to stop with a court decision than are the defenders of marriage.”

“Second,” he said, “the definition of marriage is not determined by any court or any legislative vote. A just nation recognizes and upholds the true meaning of marriage for the common good of the people and the institutions of the nation.”

“Our larger task remains the same – to remind all people of good will that without marriage, there is no prosperous and unified future for any nation,” Father Boquet said. “As the lifetime, faithful, and life-welcoming union of one woman and one man, marriage is naturally the best place to welcome children into the world and form them in love and truth. The more a society understands this natural fact, the healthier and more unified it will be. The more this natural fact is attacked, the more divided we will become, needing ever more expensive governmental solutions (welfare, prisons, etc.) to compensate for the natural good that has been discarded.”

“Finally we note that these decisions do not bode well for the freedom of those religious institutions, such as the Catholic Church, who can only uphold the true definition of marriage. We expect that persecution of the Church will increase as opponents of true marriage demand that no dissent be tolerated, and that religious institutions participate in performing ‘marriage’ ceremonies for same-sex couples or suffer charges of discrimination. We are prepared for these inevitable events, and we stand in solidarity and hope with all who defend marriage.”


About Rev. Robert A. Crutchfield

Bi-vocational minister who is Founder and Editor of FaithInspires.Org As seen in Google News, SelfGrowth.Com, etc.

Posted on June 26, 2013, in Marriage & Relationships and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.

  1. 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce, most in more conservative states, Red states.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: