A recent ruling in the United States District Court in Hawaii reveals a rational basis for the Supreme Court to rule on a morally neutral basis that marriage can be enshrined in law.

Moral Neutrality, Marriage, and the Supreme Court

by Adam J. MacLeod

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear legal challenges to state and federal laws that define marriage as the union of a man and woman. 

As the Court prepares to decide these cases, one concern ought to be avoiding injury to the Court’s legitimacy. If the Court rules on the basis of something other than law—even if the Court is reasonably perceived to be morally partisan—then it will undermine the public’s faith in its commitment to the rule of law, a faith already shaken by the perception that the Court has resolved questions that ought to be left to political and cultural institutions.

As many authors have forcefully argued at Public Discourse, one cannot determine how marriage ought to be defined in law without first addressing the question of what marriage is. Therefore, there is no morally neutral ground upon which to decide which relationships should be called marriages.

......................

Read more: www.thepublicdiscourse.com