Is gay marriage protected by the Constitution? | Eastern North Carolina Now

Or do the People of California have the right to set their marriage standards?

    The Elite Media in this country in on a crusade to bastardize our traditional culture. We have no doubt about it. The prime example is their campaign to convince everyone that an overwhelming portion of Americans support gay marriage. They don't. You know that. I know that. But the Elites continue their carefully orchestrated campaign to abolish the states' right to put whatever restrictions on the legality of marriage that they feel is in the best interest of society.

    Barack Obama is leading the charge. Now North Carolina's junior senator, Kay Hagan, has jumped on the bandwagon. Both, apparently in response to the money being thrown at this issue, see it as a political issue. But they define it as a "right." In doing so they exhibit their ignorance of U. S. Constitutional Law.

    In order for gay marriage to be a constitutionally protected "right" then one (the Supreme Court) must accept the classification of gay people being restricted from the legal benefits of marriage to be a "suspect classification" and then that the state has a compelling reason to restrict the "right" of those in that suspect classification. A suspect classification is created by one of two methods, in U. S. Constitutional law: Either by an explicit grant of protection, such as free speech, press, religion, keep and bear arms, trial by jury, protection from self-incrimination etc. Or it is created by implication inherent in the enumerated fundamental rights.

    Some people believe the Constitution prohibits "discrimination." But even a casual reflection on that presumption shows the foolishness of the idea. The government discriminates in an almost unlimited number of ways. Get yourself convicted of a crime and you will experience just how effective government discrimination can be. Apply for a license to drive a car and you will see that you are discriminated against if you don't know what the prescribed road signs mean. The list is endless. Buy a house in a subdivision with a homeowners' association and you will find the government enforcing restrictions on your property rights that those who do not suffer from a HOA never have to worry about. Buy a piece of land in a zoned area and you will quickly find that you can't do certain things with that property that others can do with their's.

    But the second prong of the "rights" test is even more important. Even if a suspect classification is created by government action the government can still restrict that right if it has a sufficiently good enough reason. And it is there that the crux of the gay marriage debate comes to rest.

    Does the state have a compelling reason to prescribe the conditions of legal marriage?

    The argument for gay marriage is essentially that two people of the same sex should be able to get married because they love one another and should be able to lived as married people live regardless of their gender. They argue they should be treated equally by the government.

    The fatal flaw in that argument is that the government has a compelling interest in protecting, promoting and sanctioning heterosexual marriage. That interest is established by tradition. And contrary what liberals argue, tradition is important. Tradition is an expression of the beliefs of society. And one of the, if not THE, paramount beliefs is that heterosexual copulation is necessary to propagate the species. But by propagate we mean more than the mechanics of insemination. We mean the raising of the progeny of the insemination.

    So then we must ask: Can a same-sex couple raise children as well as a heterosexual couple? And for the answer to that question we need look no further than tradition. Regardless of any opinions based on anecdotal or scientific "evidence" the simple fact remains: Heterosexual families have been deemed to be the preferred way to raise children for a long time by most people and that even transcends specific cultures. One might argue that it is natural law.

    If one accepts the idea that a gay couple should be able to get married because they love one another, are committed to one another and want the privileges that go with legal marriage just like heterosexual couples have, then before one can honestly accept the law accommodating that "right" for that reason (equal treatment) then one must ask: But why limit it to two people? Why even limit it to people? As foolish as it seems to some people, we know people who would marry their dog if it was legally permissible. Love, commitment and mutual support are present between me and my dog so why should we be denied the equal right to marriage? Nonsense? Well then, answer the question of why are the aspirations of gay couples legally distinguishable from those of animal lovers?

    And if the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that gays have an equal right to marriage then explain how pedophiles do not have a similar right to marry a ten year old. Or explain why brothers and sister cannot be legally married. And explain why anyone should be limited to the number of "spouses" they can choose to marry.

    Society sets cultural standards. It has always done so and it will always do so as long as individuals live in a pluralistic society. As cruel as it may seem to some liberals, if you want what a marriage license gives you, then you must conform to the standards society sets for that license, just like you must learn the road signs to get a driver's license or you must prove a minimal level of competency to get a license to operate on another person's brain or get a permit to build a structure on your property then you must conform to prescriptions or proscriptions set by society through its government.

    I would argue that two gay people have a legal right to love, commit to each other and to live together. But they do not have the right to impose their values on others. And when they seek to change the standards, in this case that the People of California set, then they have crossed the line. They have no constitutional right to a marriage license and more than they have the right to bring a 10 year old into the sexual relationship, or for three gays to marry each other.

    Having said all that (about constitutional law) I would offer what I think is a more salient conclusion about all this hoopla about gay marriage. I think it is an intentional distraction. A political straw man. Here's why.

    Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and me-too Kay Hagan realize that they cannot convince the American voter in 2014 and 2016 to give the Democrats another change to screw up the economy and devastate our military more than they already have. They need an issue they can at least stand a reasonable chance of one-upping the Republicans.

    I think Barack Obama's handlers several months ago decided they need a diversion issue. They saw that they must divert attention away from the Democrat policy and governing failures. They seized upon gay marriage as that diversion issue. That's why, when lower ranking Democrats got the memo they, like Hagan, began to fall in line.

    Hagan cannot defend her voting record with it being so way out of touch with most North Carolinians. But if she can consume the campaign debate with gay marriage she stands a chance of not having to defend her voting record. She, and her handlers, know that most North Carolinians are not going to vote against her because of her position on gay marriage. It certainly is not going to generate many door bells being rung and phone call being made to sound an alarm about her support of gay marriage. But what it may do is divert time, energy and attention from her and Barack Obama's miserable record with the economy.

    The only thing that would work better for the Democrats is to get a good argument going about whether the gays ought to be allowed to use the rainbow as their symbol. Anything that will distract attention from the real issue.

    The most practical position for Greg Brannon, or anyone running against Hagan, to take on gay marriage is: "The people of North Carolina have spoken. Our constitution prohibits gay marriage. I'm not nearly as concerned about the legality of gay marriage as I am about the debt Kay Hagan has voted to dump on our children and grandchildren. Send me to Washington and I will be a vote for putting a stop to Obama's disgraceful spending and once we get our economy back on track I'll be happy to take up gay marriage. We've got to save our nation first."

    Delma Blinson writes the "Teacher's Desk" column for our friend in the local publishing business: The Beaufort Observer. His concentration is in the area of his expertise - the education of our youth. He is a former teacher, principal, superintendent and university professor.