Sutherland’s amicus brief calls marriage and family ‘pre-political institutions’

Wedding ringsSutherland Institute filed an amicus curiae brief Monday with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in the state’s appeal of Kitchen v. Herbert – the case in which the judge struck down Utah’s Amendment 3, briefly allowing same-sex marriages to be performed.

Judge Robert Shelby wrongly “characterized the ‘goal’ of Utah’s marriage amendment as ‘imposition of inequality’ as if legislators had gathered in a brainstorming session to determine how to harm the chances of same-sex couples, and came up with a thing called marriage to which these couples could be intentionally excluded,” the brief says.

Marriage and family are “pre-political institutions,” it says. “Given that marriage and family are pre-political and not mere instruments of state policy, they are fundamental to a system of ordered liberty …”

“All of this is not to say the state has no role to play in regards to marriage and the family. The state can, and ought to, provide a legal structure for the family to be recognized and it can protect the integrity of that structure.”

Click here to read the full brief.

Related posts:

This entry was posted in Family and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Sutherland’s amicus brief calls marriage and family ‘pre-political institutions’

  1. Michael T. Packard says:

    Your comment makes an important point.

    For reference, marriage received some mention by ancient Sumerians as well as in the Code of Hammurabi. (I admit I haven’t yet read your brief, but will do so now.mtp)

    Another key point, that I have not yet heard mentioned, is that without the innovation of sexual reproduction over 1 billion years ago, no life forms higher than bacteria would have likely evolved on the earth.

    Much of the foundation for judicial decisions on the sex-based decisions of the courts has been solely that of modern law views. Apparently, all these judges needed to know to make such decisions was what they learned in law school.

  2. Michael T. Packard says:

    Re: My point above regarding the history of sex in the development of all higher life on earth, goes to the super-critical key point as to having standing to challenge laws on marriage; “Gay-”Marriage”" advocates lack standing at the most fundamental level imaginable.

    Other-sex human individuals, having declared themselves to be out-of-the-closet..ie… as not being members of the human family who are by nature part of that original-sexual-revolution that occurred on earth so early in its infancy, as well as totally non-sexual individuals…eunuchs… all are outside the window looking in, at the natural world that is here because of sexual reproduction.

    All members of groups who are not members of the two sexes literally lack standing to challenge the two-sex sexual nature of the world we live in.

    Another sub-point of this argument that has been made elsewhere/elsewhen:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>