Over the last few years, various courts have issued rulings arguing that a state’s marriage amendment violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In a recent column, Ryan T. Anderson takes on this bizarre interpretation. He is the coauthor of the book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, and has appeared on my radio program.

Let’s begin with some agreement with the court decisions. Most courts that cite the Fourteenth Amendment argue that it “protects the fundamental right to marry.” Ryan Anderson agrees that the Fourteenth Amendment does protect marriage. But the key question in how do you define marriage. The founders, the framers, and the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment all understood marriage to be between one man and one woman. Until a few years ago, every court decision accepted the traditional definition of marriage.

Let’s also acknowledge that the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define marriage. I doubt any of the founders or framers would ever have thought that would be necessary. So if the Constitution is silent on what marriage is, it would logically follow that states should be able to define what marriage is.

Judge Paul Kelly at the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dissented from two other justices and made this very point. “The Constitution is silent on the regulation of marriage; accordingly, that power is reserved to the States, albeit consistent with federal constitutional guarantees.” Later on he warned the court about the implications. “If the States are the laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize same-gender unions—contrary to the views of the electorate and representatives—turns the notion of a limited national government on its head.”

Ryan Anderson concludes that whatever you might think about marriage, “the courts shouldn’t redefine it. Marriage policy should be worked out through the democratic process, not dictated by unelected judges.” Put simply, the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t give judges the right to redefine marriage.