Friday, January 29, 2010

Gay Marriage and the Constitution

By Douglas V. Gibbs

I have strong opinions about gay marriage in America. I receive criticisms for those views often. In America it is just as much my right to have an opinion that sees marriage as being between a man and a woman, as it is the right of a homosexual to believe that gay marriage should be legalized. I voted yes on Proposition 8 in California which amends the State Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. I am a Christian, and I see homosexuality as an immoral behavior that rips at the fabric of society, and I see the gay agenda as one that does not want marriage as they claim to be theirs too, but to destroy marriage and to alter the concept of the traditional family unit.

A legal case involving the constitutionality of Proposition 8 worked its way up through the state courts, and ultimately found its way into the State Supreme Court where the amendment was found to be constitutional. Now, the case is in the 9th Circuit Federal Court. The case being heard in a federal court, in my opinion, is unconstitutional.

Contrary to popular leftist opinion, I do not want the federal government to ban gay marriage across the land. And contrary to the opinion of most of those same people, I do not wish for the gay behavior to be made illegal. Yes, I know I said I was split on Uganda's anti-gay laws, but not because I believe the behavior should be policed, but because of the provision in Uganda's law that treats AIDS as being no different than a deadly weapon. If someone transmits the HIV virus to another person, and they know they are infected with the disease, it is no different than putting a gun against someone's head - if not worse.

In America, however, we have something called the U.S. Constitution. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments very carefully explain that unless the federal government through enumeration or amendment is given a particular authority, the federal government has no jurisdiction over an issue. Sexual behavior, marriage, or anything remotely close to the gay agenda, is not mentioned as being an issue the federal government has any authority over in the Constitution - therefore, it is a state issue.

If Proposition 8 had failed in California, I would have had three choices. Either lead an effort to change the law, accept the law as is, or move to a state that more closely resembles what I desire. The gay activists in California have those same options. Either change the State Constitution, put up and shut up, or leave the state. That is the beauty of state sovereignty.

Equal protection under the law is not applicable here, either. First of all we are dealing with behavior. Second, government shouldn't even be dictating rules to marriage in the first place, much less threatening to change the definition of language to accommodate a group of people who choose a deviant behavior. Third, the people are treated equally under the law. The law states a definition and all people must equally abide by that definition. The definition does not change for one group or another. Therefore, there is equal treatment.

Marriage is a state issue, and the federal government (including federal courts) has no authority on the issue. I do not wish for a federal ban on gay marriage, nor a federal law to the contrary. The issue must be addressed by the states for themselves. Some states may define marriage as between a man and a woman, and some will legalize gay marriage. If someday all states do one, or the other, then so be it. Whatever the outcome, let's at least address the issue from a constitutional point of view, and do so at the state level.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: