The list of 379 corporations and business groups who have submitted an amicus brief in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, urging the US Supreme Court to declare same-sex “marriage” a constitutional right, certainly makes for impressive reading: from Amazon to Apple, from Microsoft to IBM, from Citigroup to Coca-Cola Company, from KPMG to McKinsey & Company, from Pfizer to Verizon, it represents, as one observer wrote, a veritable Gotha of the US economy.
But the content of the document under which these companies have put their names is even more remarkable: while the usual purpose of an amicus brief is to submit to a law court some legal arguments that might be helpful in deciding the case, this one distinguishes itself by offering no legal argument at all, but only an explanation why those companies would find it politically desirable to make recognition of same-sex “marriages” compulsory in all 50 States.
These reasons are summarized in statements asserting that “our businesses benefit from diversity and inclusion”, and “marriage discrimination [viz. the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman] injures our businesses”.
The essential argument that the brief seeks to make is that if the US continue to be divided into states where same-sex “marriages” are legally recognized and states where they are not, “top talented” homosexual employees will migrate to the states where they can “marry”, and avoid settling down in states where that is not possible. Therefore, given that by now “more than seventy percent of Americans live in a state that celebrates and recognizes same-sex marriages,” the time has come to impose same-sex “marriages” on the rest of the US.
These arguments are not only disingenuous, but also self-defeating.
They are disingenuous because the assertion that “more than seventy percent of Americans live in a state that celebrates and recognizes same-sex marriages” falsely suggests that there is widespread and strong support for same-sex “marriage” in American society. But the fact is that in 24 of the 37 states that currently recognize same-sex “marriage” the practice has been imposed by activist courts asserting a right that appears nowhere in the law or in the U.S. Constitution. Without this consistent and systematic abuse of the judicial authority by activist judges, it would not be 37-13 states in favour of same-sex “marriage”, but 37-13 against.
For the same reason, the argumentation is also self-defeating. It could be used to prove the exact opposite of what the signatories of the amicus brief seek to prove. If the issue is not the nature of marriage itself, but solely the fragmentation of marriage laws across the US, then it could also be solved by prohibiting same-sex “marriages” across all 50 states, not only by making their recognition compulsory. The problem here as elsewhere is that the supporters of same-sex “marriage” have no clear understanding of what marriage is. To them it apparently is an arbitrary invention that can at any time be replaced by another arbitrary.
Having no clue of the ontology of marriage, they also have no clue of constitutional law. Even assuming, for argument’s sake, that their pragmatic, seemingly “business-oriented” argument were well founded (which in fact it clearly isn’t), it would still be grotesquely inappropriate for an amicus brief submitted to a law court that has to make a decision on the basis of legal grounds.
The question that the US Supreme Court is called to decide is whether a state that fails to offer to same-sex couples a legal possibility to “marry” is violating the US Federal Constitution. This question is an apparent absurdity, given that the Constitution has been in force since 1789, whereas the first US State to legally recognize same-sex “marriages” was Massachusetts in 2004, as a result of a controversial court ruling. Is it really plausible that the Constitution contains a right to same-sex “marriage” that has remained completely unknown and unnoticed for 215 years??
Be that as it may, that question essentially is a legal question that may be divided into sub-questions. The first of these sub-questions that comes to mind is whether legislating on marriage is a federal or a state competence (and so far, the universally accepted position was that it was the latter), and a second question is whether there is some general “equal treatment” principle in the Federal Constitution that obliges states to treat same-sex relationships equal to man-woman relationships, despite the apparent differences between both.
These are legal questions that must be answered with legal arguments, which must be based on a sound interpretation of the US Constitution. But whoever looks into the 379 corporations’ brief will find that it offers no such arguments. Instead, the reasoning that it develops is of a purely pragmatic nature, with no legal basis whatsoever. The 379 corporations simply say that they would find it desirable that the Supreme Court rule in favour of same-sex “marriages”, so it should please just adopt such a decision irrespective of whether it has any foundation in the US Constitution or not.
So what is the real meaning of this grotesque amicus brief??? Apparently, it is intended as a demonstration of political power – one the one hand, the power wielded by the 379 corporations themselves, and on the other hand (more importantly) the power of the “gay rights” lobby that has pressured them to sign up to this submission. It is hardly believable that the managements of the 379 companies really believe what they have signed up to; instead it must be assumed that they have been bullied into signing this – by boycott threats, threats of negative media campaigns, or even some threats to reveal delicate details of the private lives of some of the managers and company owners concerned. Blackmailing traditionally is one of the preferred strategies of the homo lobby.
But the amicus brief is revelatory also for another reason. It shows that its authors view the Supreme Court not as a judiciary instance that decides legal cases on the basis of legal arguments, but as a political institution making decisions on the basis of a purely political reasoning.
The Court should feel ashamed to have become the addressee of such submissions.