ADF to 11th Circuit: Uphold freedom of Fla. to affirm marriage as one man, one woman

ATLANTA – Alliance Defending Freedom asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit Friday to accept a friend-of-the-court brief that encourages the court to uphold the freedom of the people of Florida to affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

On Nov. 6, the 6th Circuit affirmed the freedom of four other states to decide their own marriage laws. The ADF brief submitted to the 11th Circuit in Brenner v. Armstrong encourages the same result and cites numerous stories and much social science evidence about the importance of children knowing and being raised by both of their biological parents.

“The people of Florida – and every state – should continue to have the freedom to affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman in their laws,” said ADF Senior Counsel Byron Babione. “As the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in its Windsor decision last year, marriage law is the business of the states. States that choose to affirm marriage as a man and a woman have vital reasons for doing so.”

“The Constitution does not demand that one irreversible view of marriage be judicially imposed on all the states,” added ADF Legal Counsel Ken Connelly. “As our brief explains, marriage has always played an essential role in protecting the welfare of the next generation by linking children to both of their biological parents, and that is a compelling government interest of the highest order.”

In August, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida issued an order striking down the state’s marriage laws but put a hold on implementation of its order. That hold is still in effect.

As the ADF brief submitted to the 11th Circuit explains, “the State best serves children when it adopts laws and policies that promote the biological home. Man-woman-marriage laws do just that. The preeminent social purpose of marriage – and the overriding reason why the government recognizes marriage – is to connect children to both of their biological parents.”

“Because…man-woman-marriage laws directly further the State’s compelling interest in providing for the next generation’s inherent need to know and be raised by their own mother and father, this Court should not condemn those laws as constitutionally infirm,” the brief states.

The brief goes on to provide numerous stories and social science evidence about the importance of children knowing and being raised by both of their biological parents, observing that “encouraging family arrangements where children are raised apart from one or both of their biological parents frustrates their ability to know themselves and form their identities…. As one person separated from her biological father tellingly revealed: ‘I think of myself as a puzzle; [but] the only picture I have ever known is half complete….’ In contrast, children reared in intact biological homes benefit from access to all these pieces when building their life story….”