Can Constitutions or Laws Change Marriage?: Reflections on the “Goods of Marriage” and Natural Law of John Finnis

In this article the author examines recent case of the US Supreme Court, namely Obergefell v. Hodges in which a group of academics acted as amicus curiae in explaining natural law grounds for having traditional approach to marriage as a union between one woman and one man. Author shows the connection between teachings of natural law legal theorist John Finnis and his work entitled ‘Goods of marriage’ and endorses the view that ‘marriage’ should be reserved only for heterosexual couples. Heterosexual marriage, according to Finnis, protects the family, the Judeo-Christian concept of monogamy, and other social values that have been attained in the course of social evolution.U ovom djelu autor prikazuje nedavni slučaj iznesen pred Vrhovnim sudom Sjedinjenih Američkih Država Obergefell v. Hodges u kojem je skupina znanstvenika priložila podnesak, kao prijatelji suda, u kojem su zagovarali zadržavanje tradicionalnog koncepta braka kao zajednice jednog muškarca i jedne žene. Autor povezuje učenja teoretičara (prirodnog) prava Johna Finnisa i njegov rad ‘Goods of Marriage’ sa zahtjevom da se bračna zajednica rezervira samo za heteroseksualne parove. Heteroseksualni brak, kao judeo-kršćanski koncept monogamije, prema Finnisu čuva obitelj i ostale društvene vrijednosti koje su postignute kroz društvenu evoluciju