Gay Marriage and the Supreme Court, part 1

Last Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court heard Obergefell vs. Hodges, a case regarding gay marriage that represents challenges to constitutional amendments regarding marriage in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The plaintiffs in these cases want their gay marriages (It makes me sick to write that phrase, but in the interest of continuity, I’ll stick with it.), which were performed in states in which gay marriage is legally recognized, to be recognized as legal in the state in which they now reside.

Ultimately, what is at stake here involves the very definition of marriage. Should the plaintiff win, marriage will no longer be defined as a union of one man and one woman. Earlier this year in Thailand, three men were joined together in marriage. Although Thailand does not officially sanction gay marriage, the men claim that Buddhist law permits their union. In other words, Christianity is not the prevailing wisdom, any type of union between any number of men or women is possible, and all common sense appears to be out the door.

Obergefell vs. Hodges involves more detail and possible ramifications than meets the eye. Pundits are quoting the 1st Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and much more to argue for one side or another. While on the surface it looks as though the definition of marriage may remain intact, one must be prepared for the potential outcomes should it be changed by the Supreme Court.

Those in favor of gay marriage flee like moths to light to the 14th Amendment. With the exception of the phrase “separation of church and state” (which deserves a blog all its own), no other language in the history of manmade governments has been as misused as the 14th Amendment. If you remember anything about history, you probably recall that this amendment was passed in respect to making former slaves legal citizens of the US and the state in which they resided. That is all. It was not intended to give rights to illegal immigrants, those seeking an abortion, or two men wanting to be married.

The last phrase of Section 1, often called the “equal protection clause,” reads that the states cannot write or enforce laws that shall prevent the people from their rights, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In other words, if one citizen has a right, that right has to be equally provided to every other citizen. While I appreciate the application of the law to create fairness and equality to minority groups, in particular, former slaves, as well as to women, it is completely out of line to interpret the 14th Amendment as a means for two women to wed. But then, I’m not an attorney or a judge so I tend to interpret this language for exactly and precisely what it says under the historical context in which it was passed. Silly me.

The argument using the First Amendment is equally ridiculous. With careful editing so as to make this more understandable, the First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” Unless you are an idiot, you can see clearly that this indicates that Congress cannot pass any law that would prevent you from speaking your mind. What it does NOT say is that you can get married to someone of the same gender as you and call it an expression of your speech. In other words, this amendment gives the people NO rights whatsoever. It only prohibits the rights of Congress and prevents them from usurping authority from the people.

Aside from the laws we have in place, the best argument against gay marriage comes from Canada, where gay marriage was legalized ten years ago. Whenever possible, it’s a good idea to learn from the experiences of others who have “been there and done that” so that you can learn from their successes and errors. The legalization has proven to be a grave error.

According to an article by Dawn Stefanowicz, the child of two gay parents, Canadians no longer have the privilege of free speech as it concerns homosexuals and gay marriage. Because homosexuals are now considered a protected class, it is illegal to say or write anything considered “homophobic.” It is considered “hate speech” to do so and the penalties are fierce.

Why do police prosecute speech under the guise of eliminating “hate speech” when there are existing legal remedies and criminal protections against slander, defamation, threats, and assault that equally apply to all Americans? Hate-crime-like policies using the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” create unequal protections in law, whereby protected groups receive more legal protection than other groups.” (see link below)

I’ve often wondered why illegal immigrants have the right of a free education in our public schools while a US citizen is regularly required to pay various fees. I’ve wondered why black students and students in other minority groups are given favored status over white children when attempting to be accepted to colleges. I’ve wondered why women and minorities who fill out job applications are given preference over white males. Yet once again, this nation is setting itself up for yet another minority group to have protections that are not given to the majority classes. Why should speaking against gay marriage be considered hate speech when speaking against a heterosexual marriage is not?

“If any of you has reasons why these two should not be married, speak now or forever hold your peace.” I object!

~Temerity Dowell

Below is a link to the entire article by Mrs. Stefanowicz which lists numerous reasons why gay marriage should not be upheld as the law of the land. I highly recommend it!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s