The question of the day has been the gay-marriage debate. Today, a federal judge overturned (at least temporarily) Indiana's ban on gay marriage.
I commented that I was disturbed that one man -- in this case, the federal judge -- could overturn the will of the people -- in this case, the legally-elected legislators of the State of Indiana.
The truth is that Indiana, as a state, has overwhelmingly been against gay marriage from the beginning, and remains so today. The large majority of people in the state believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman only. That majority has been stopped by the interpretation of just one man.
Two comments from my post today stuck out. The first: "It goes both ways Paul. One can't demand the constitution be upheld for things like religious freedom and then say "no" to equality under the law."
The second: "Would you feel better if this law was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court?"
I will respond to both posts like this...
Marriage is not now, nor ever has been, an equality issue. The only way these bans are getting overturned is by attempting to turn it into one.
Marriage is not now, nor ever has been, a constitutional issue. It has ALWAYS been a religious issue. Marriage -- heterosexual, gay, etc. -- is neither sanctioned nor forbidden by the Constitution. As such, it is an issue that is left to the individual states to decide and legislate. That is how the Constitution was designed, and is supposed to work. Unless specifically dealt with in the Constitution, the issue becomes a state issue.
It is a LEGAL issue, not an EQUAL RIGHTS issue. It cannot possibly be an EQUAL RIGHTS issue, because the right simply does not exist in the Constitution, not to gay people or straight people. ITS NOT THERE!
The truth is that gay marriage was never technically illegal, as far as the states were concerned, at least in terms of there being a law on the books specifically forbidding it.
But let's take a step back for a second and ask ourselves what marriage really is, anyway. Marriage is a religious institution. Always has been. Marriage is the union of two people who choose to pledge their lives to each other and hopefully spend the rest of their days together. That's really all it is. Any two people can get married anytime they want. Or three people, or a man to his dog, etc. There's nothing stopping them, because marriage as a concept isn't forbidden to anyone. (I'm not getting into the "Christian" definition of marriage. I'm trying to stay focused on the legal ramifications.)
The real question comes down to whether an individual states chooses to recognize that marriage legally. And all that really means is whether you can receive from that state whatever benefits they offer to you as a married person, if they deem your marriage legal in their own terms. Sadly, the only real legal benefits to a marriage revolve around money. Tax benefits, credits, mortgage exemptions and the like. So, as one commented on my post today, most people really do marry for love. That's true. But the only real reason they would care whether or not anyone recognizes it legally is for money purposes, because that is the only benefit to be received from the state.
If you pledge your love and devotion to each other before God, then God is the only one who can deem it invalid. There's nothing the state can do to you if you pledge your love to another. If you want a tax break, you gotta hope your state recognizes it legally.
So that really is what all the fuss is about: Does the state recognize your marriage legally? If you're not interested in the tax breaks, then why the heck do you care if I support it or not?
Which brings us back to the original issue. Gay marriage was never technically illegal to begin with. I suspect all that happened is that at some point, some gay couple asked someone to marry them, and that someone refused, and the legal battle began. The states, in some cases to their detriment, started passing laws banning this and that and so forth, as if it all really mattered, which it didn't.
What they should have done, if they had been smart, is said, "For the purposes of taxes in this state, we will recognize all unions between two persons who have pledged themselves to each other." Or something to that effect. The truth is that many states have laws on the books that recognize "civil unions" for just that reason. If those people want to call themselves married, so be it. That probably would have put an end to all the hub-bub.
Rather, they started this ridiculous legal battle we all see today, one that has totally distracted us all from the real problems facing this country, namely a President who is hell bent on destroying this country for his own diabolical reasons.
By the way, how's that new job working out?
But I digress... on to the issue of the courts. As a legal issue, I have a real problem with how our courts have overstepped their bounds by creating law, rather than merely upholding it. The concept of precedent-setting decisions becoming law is one, I believe, our founding fathers never intended. But because of it, our kids can no longer pray in schools, or hang a picture of Jesus in the public library. Nevermind the fact that the phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't even exist in the Constitution, and any moron who reads the first amendment can clearly see that the intention of the "religious freedom" verbage was to guarantee people's right to free expression of their religion, in any forum, not to suppress it. But somewhere along the line, some dopey judge decided the opposite was true, and now that's the law.
I'm just not sure how that happened.
So, yes, I do believe the Constitution guarantees Freedom of Religion. It does not offer or guarantee any perceived Equal Right to marriage. It simply does not exist.
And no, I do not believe judges should be overruling the laws and will of the state. If you don't like the laws in one state, move. You have that right, and you can bet there's a state out there that will cater to your wants and needs. Check out the nutballs in California.
If it is indeed allowed to continue to be an "Equal Rights" issue, then you can bank on this... There will come a day when a man will sue to have his marriage to his dog recognized legally on that basis. Or worse, some creepy old guy will sue that his rights are being infringed cause he wants to have sex with 13 year old girls.
And they'll win. Think about that.
