The View Of Constitutional Interpretation

900 Words4 Pages
While I find the Originalist view of constitutional interpretation to be compelling and considered very carefully, I do not think it is enough to say that the Obergefell decision was incorrect because of the lack of democratic opportunity this issue was given prior to this case. I also think that Gallagher, Girgis, George, and Anderson all have valid points to why marriage should be between a man and a women with that it is better for children and it is not natural, there are issues to their argument that I must address.
Corvino does not agree with the fact that marriage must be between a man and a women. There are flaws in Girgis, George, and Anderson’s argument of bodily union only occurring between a man and a women because they can reproduce. What would the status of a married couple be if the man or women became sterile? Would their sexual acts count as a bodily union or would they no longer be considered married because they cannot procreate? What would the status of a married couple be if the man or women became paralyzed and could not perform sexual acts? Would they still be married because they cannot achieve this bodily union at all? Girgis, George, and Anderson would reply that it is the intention of the act that would say they were a bodily union even if they could not perform this act or reproduce. Corvino finds serious flaws in this way of thinking because sterile or couples who cannot perform sexual acts look very similar to same-sex couples who can perform
Get Access