However you may feel about the gay marriage issue it must not be decided by the Court interpreting the 14th Amendment as creating a right to gay marriage.
The Fourteenth Amendment has been analyzed in great detail by the litigants and by this Court in the cases relating to gay marriage. The history of its application has been traced in detail by both sides of this contest. Both sides contend that their position is supported by the 14th Amendment. Both sides cite to the same case law and even quote some of the same dicta. However, the current case is unique, and if the position of the advocates for gay marriage is adopted by the Court then the entire nature of the Constitution will have changed, and the Republic along with it.
The Petitioners admonish that the purpose of the 14th Amendment is to protect liberty.[1] However, they have not asked the Court to protect liberty, they have asked this Court instead to create a new governmental right. The Court has repeatedly held that the 14th Amendment protects those natural rights that exist independent of government.[2] The Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”[3] The Court has repeatedly recognized that certain fundamental liberty interests though not enumerated in the Constitution itself are to be protected from government interference.[4] Among these rights has been the right of private citizens to conduct their own private family life and for parents to raise children as they see fit.[5] However, the 14th Amendment did not create these rights and cannot operate as a blank check for the Court to create new rights at its pleasure.
The position of the petitioners is original in that they have not asked for protection from government interference in private home life. Instead they have invited the government into their homes. They have asked for the government to extend a license and privileges to them. They do not seek to limit government involvement but instead demand government involvement. They claim a right to a marriage license. However a marriage license like any other government license is not available to all, but only to those that meet certain predetermined conditions.[6] A license is not a right, it is a privilege. And the 14th Amendment does not create a government duty to extend licenses or privileges.
In truth, even the strictest marriage license requirement does not deny anyone any right. No same sex couple is prevented from proclaiming that they are committed to each other. No same sex couple is prevented from conducting a ceremony of their own choosing or design to add dignity to their relationship. No same sex couple is prevented from exchanging rings and vows. No same sex couple is prevented from endeavoring to live happily ever after. No same sex couple is prevented from referring to their partner as their “spouse.” Further, no same sex couple is prevented from announcing to the world that they are married. In fact, many of the same people who have rushed to the courthouse for a license state that they have been “married” for years.[7] The only thing they have been denied, and that they have complained of, is the denial of certain privileges, to wit: tax benefits[8], step-parent adoption privileges[9], government benefits[10], etc. These benefits are not denied as a result of sex, age or religion, but because of a simple failure to comply with licensing regulations. The member of a same sex couple has no greater disadvantage than any other person. A single person could raise the same lamentations as the members of a same sex couple. They are likewise denied tax benefits, step-parent adoption privileges, and other government benefits.
What petitioners seek is a fundamental change in how the Constitution operates. Before his rise to the presidency Barak Obama stated: “generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”[11] The petitioners in this case are asking the Court to not just interpret the Constitution in a new way. They are asking the Court to change the nature and function of the Constitution. If petitioners are successful, then the Constitution will no longer be a shield protecting the rights of the people. It will lose all value. It will become an agent for the destruction of liberty and a free republic.
The danger could not be more grave. The sought for “interpretation” will render the Constitution entirely useless. Judicial review and interpretation cannot be so broad as to render the Constitution itself a nullity. If the Constitution ceases to be our guide then we have no law or justice and soon will have no republic.
Homosexual unions do not threaten heterosexual couples in the sense that such unions do not change the nature of heterosexual relationships. However, if the Constitution is changed by judicial interpretation from a protection for liberties into a document that says what the government must do for you then the transition to a socialist republic will be complete.
[1] Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619 (1984).
[2] Fundamental liberty interests are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” such that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.” Washington v. Glucksburg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997).
[3] The United States Code, "the official codification of the general and permanent laws of the United States," includes the Declaration of Independence in the section entitled "The Organic Laws of the United States of America." See Black’s Law Dictionary 1274 (10th ed. 2014)(defining “organic law” as “[t]he body of laws (as in a constitution) that define and establish a government”).
[4] Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923; and Prince v. Massachusetts,HYPERLINK "http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3012582275354260465&q=erg+custody&hl=en&as_sdt=4,1" 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619 (1984)
[5] Prince v. Massachusetts,HYPERLINK "http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3012582275354260465&q=erg+custody&hl=en&as_sdt=4,1" 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944)(“It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.”)
[6] A license can create a property interest but it is not a right itself. The Court has previously held that a law license once obtained is a property right and due protections from government interference like other property rights.
[7] See http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/same-sex_marriage_in_alabama_t.html (“But, for the couples who did get married, Monday was a day of celebration. ‘I've always felt that we were married,’ Laura Bush said Monday evening. ‘It's always been that kind of relationship.’”); see also http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-interview-couple-reflects-gay-marriage (same sex couple weds years ago without marriage license).
[8] DeBoer 10-13
[9] DeBoer 10-13
[10] DeBoer 10-13
[11] See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2116149/posts.
The Fourteenth Amendment has been analyzed in great detail by the litigants and by this Court in the cases relating to gay marriage. The history of its application has been traced in detail by both sides of this contest. Both sides contend that their position is supported by the 14th Amendment. Both sides cite to the same case law and even quote some of the same dicta. However, the current case is unique, and if the position of the advocates for gay marriage is adopted by the Court then the entire nature of the Constitution will have changed, and the Republic along with it.
The Petitioners admonish that the purpose of the 14th Amendment is to protect liberty.[1] However, they have not asked the Court to protect liberty, they have asked this Court instead to create a new governmental right. The Court has repeatedly held that the 14th Amendment protects those natural rights that exist independent of government.[2] The Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”[3] The Court has repeatedly recognized that certain fundamental liberty interests though not enumerated in the Constitution itself are to be protected from government interference.[4] Among these rights has been the right of private citizens to conduct their own private family life and for parents to raise children as they see fit.[5] However, the 14th Amendment did not create these rights and cannot operate as a blank check for the Court to create new rights at its pleasure.
The position of the petitioners is original in that they have not asked for protection from government interference in private home life. Instead they have invited the government into their homes. They have asked for the government to extend a license and privileges to them. They do not seek to limit government involvement but instead demand government involvement. They claim a right to a marriage license. However a marriage license like any other government license is not available to all, but only to those that meet certain predetermined conditions.[6] A license is not a right, it is a privilege. And the 14th Amendment does not create a government duty to extend licenses or privileges.
In truth, even the strictest marriage license requirement does not deny anyone any right. No same sex couple is prevented from proclaiming that they are committed to each other. No same sex couple is prevented from conducting a ceremony of their own choosing or design to add dignity to their relationship. No same sex couple is prevented from exchanging rings and vows. No same sex couple is prevented from endeavoring to live happily ever after. No same sex couple is prevented from referring to their partner as their “spouse.” Further, no same sex couple is prevented from announcing to the world that they are married. In fact, many of the same people who have rushed to the courthouse for a license state that they have been “married” for years.[7] The only thing they have been denied, and that they have complained of, is the denial of certain privileges, to wit: tax benefits[8], step-parent adoption privileges[9], government benefits[10], etc. These benefits are not denied as a result of sex, age or religion, but because of a simple failure to comply with licensing regulations. The member of a same sex couple has no greater disadvantage than any other person. A single person could raise the same lamentations as the members of a same sex couple. They are likewise denied tax benefits, step-parent adoption privileges, and other government benefits.
What petitioners seek is a fundamental change in how the Constitution operates. Before his rise to the presidency Barak Obama stated: “generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”[11] The petitioners in this case are asking the Court to not just interpret the Constitution in a new way. They are asking the Court to change the nature and function of the Constitution. If petitioners are successful, then the Constitution will no longer be a shield protecting the rights of the people. It will lose all value. It will become an agent for the destruction of liberty and a free republic.
The danger could not be more grave. The sought for “interpretation” will render the Constitution entirely useless. Judicial review and interpretation cannot be so broad as to render the Constitution itself a nullity. If the Constitution ceases to be our guide then we have no law or justice and soon will have no republic.
Homosexual unions do not threaten heterosexual couples in the sense that such unions do not change the nature of heterosexual relationships. However, if the Constitution is changed by judicial interpretation from a protection for liberties into a document that says what the government must do for you then the transition to a socialist republic will be complete.
[1] Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619 (1984).
[2] Fundamental liberty interests are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” such that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.” Washington v. Glucksburg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997).
[3] The United States Code, "the official codification of the general and permanent laws of the United States," includes the Declaration of Independence in the section entitled "The Organic Laws of the United States of America." See Black’s Law Dictionary 1274 (10th ed. 2014)(defining “organic law” as “[t]he body of laws (as in a constitution) that define and establish a government”).
[4] Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923; and Prince v. Massachusetts,HYPERLINK "http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3012582275354260465&q=erg+custody&hl=en&as_sdt=4,1" 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 619 (1984)
[5] Prince v. Massachusetts,HYPERLINK "http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3012582275354260465&q=erg+custody&hl=en&as_sdt=4,1" 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944)(“It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.”)
[6] A license can create a property interest but it is not a right itself. The Court has previously held that a law license once obtained is a property right and due protections from government interference like other property rights.
[7] See http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/same-sex_marriage_in_alabama_t.html (“But, for the couples who did get married, Monday was a day of celebration. ‘I've always felt that we were married,’ Laura Bush said Monday evening. ‘It's always been that kind of relationship.’”); see also http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-interview-couple-reflects-gay-marriage (same sex couple weds years ago without marriage license).
[8] DeBoer 10-13
[9] DeBoer 10-13
[10] DeBoer 10-13
[11] See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2116149/posts.
RSS Feed
