Here’s an important question we need to answer. Is there a Constitutional right to same-sex “marriage”?

If a Constitutional right exists then it should end all the debate. The Supreme Court should simply cite the Constitution and the entire issue will be settled. And yet, when they had the chance not even the Supreme Court was willing to say that such a right exists. That leaves me wondering whether such a right – as some activists claim – is reasonable.

One of the most important court decisions concerning the definition of marriage has been issued and you probably didn’t even know it. Not only did the media fail to cover the decision adequately, but the fact that it took place in Europe made it a little harder to hear about. But, let me share a brief recap to ensure you are up to speed with this monumental decision. Here’s a recap as reported by Alliance Defending Freedom:

The facts:

• Man marries woman; Man decides he’s female; Man has “sexual reassignment surgery” to “become” female; Man tries to change his legal status to female.
• Finland has law restricting marriage to one man one woman unions; Finland declines to change Man’s legal status unless Man and Woman agree to dissolve their marriage and enter domestic partnership; Man and Woman do not want to do that, arguing that divorce is against their religion and their children would be disadvantaged, having lesser status than they do as the children of a married couple.
• Man and Woman therefore demanded to have Man’s legal status changed to female while leaving Man and Woman in a marriage, even though Finland does not recognize marriages between two females.

The outcome of this case will surprise you. While we are tempted to think that certainly the European Court of Human Rights would affirm the right of same-sex “marriage,” we’d be wrong. The shocking and encouraging court decision was that the European Convention on Human Rights (similar to our Constitution) does not require any nation to recognize or legalize same-sex “marriage.”

This is a very interesting court decision as it has major implications for coming decisions from the Supreme Court. It remains to be seen what, if anything, SCOTUS will do with this decision. But the fact that it was made speaks volumes.

As the Supreme Court prepares to take up several cases related to the definition of marriage, they would be wise to at least consider the fact that the European Court refused to impose a one-size-fits-all solution on Europe. Rather than demanding that every country in Europe legalize same-sex “marriage,” the court understands that each country should be allowed to determine for itself how it will define marriage. Interestingly, only 10 of the 47 countries in Europe have legalized same-sex “marriage.”

Some want the Supreme Court to issue a sweeping ruling making same-sex “marriage” legal in all 50 United States. That would be an unwise decision and abruptly end the robust discussion currently taking place surrounding marriage, parenthood, and sexuality.

But, is it possible that the Supreme Court has already decided the issue of marriage?

In a recent blog post for the Family Research Council, Peter Sprigg reviews the 1972 Baker v. Nelson case. He writes:

“Baker v. Nelson is an important precedent on this issue. It was the very first case in which anyone ever asserted that the Constitution of the United States protects the right to legally ‘marry’ a person of the same sex. In Baker, a male couple sued a county clerk in Minnesota for denying them a marriage license in May 1970. The case made its way to the Supreme Court of Minnesota — which, on October 15, 1971, issued a ruling declaring that the state’s marriage law did not permit a same-sex couple to ‘marry,’ and that it ‘does not offend … the United States Constitution.’ The case was appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court — which at the time, was required to accept all such appeals (this is no longer true). The Supreme Court issued its ruling on the case on October 10, 1972, declaring (in full): ‘Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.’ The dismissal of the appeal ‘for want of [a] substantial federal question’ meant that the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision against same-sex ‘marriage’ to stand…a ‘dismissal for want of a substantial federal question’ is not just a refusal to hear the case…Such a summary dismissal is considered to be both a decision on the merits and a binding precedent.”

In other words, the Supreme Court has already admitted that a law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman does not offend the Constitution. This also necessarily means that laws banning same-sex “marriage” do not offend, or violate, the Constitution.

The hard-hitting combination of a major European case and binding U.S. case will surely come into the conversation when the Supreme Court takes up several cases in the coming term. What remains to be seen is how the court will use those preceding cases in determining their current cases. Will the court adhere to precedent in the 1972 Baker case? Will they take a cue from a far more liberal court as the one in Europe is?

I can’t answer those questions. But what I do know is that so far the Supreme Court has seemed very hesitant to trample state sovereignty and impose a national definition of marriage. They seem more willing to let states decide for themselves what the definition of marriage is. That’s a good thing. I hope the Supreme Court will continue that trend and allow states, and the people that live in them, to decide for themselves.