Home Page

Op/Ed Page  

In two cases before the court; one challenging Section 3 of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which recognizes marriage as the union of one man and one woman pertaining to federal benefits and an appeal to a federal district court's decision overturning California's Proposition 8 which banned homosexual marriage, a divided court ruled 5-4 that DOMA violated the constitution's equal protection clause. The 2nd case was remanded back to the district court as the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the parties who appealed the case had no standing.

The effect of the rulings are the legal recognition by the federal government of homosexual marriages performed in the twelve states where they are legal pertaining to federal benefits and legalizing homosexual marriage in California. What the court did not do was find a constitutional right to homosexual marriage and did not overturn the thirty state constitutional amendments limiting marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Chief Justice Roberts made that point clear,  “I think it … important to point out that its analysis leads no further. The court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the states, in the exercise of their ‘historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,’ … may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage.”

What is disturbing was the court's effort to short circuit the democratic process by imposing their view of marriage. In dissent, Justice Scalia wrote, “We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.” Even though the ruling was limited to the federal government and one state, the basis for the decision will be used like a bludgeon to eviscerate the cultural underpinnings of a nation. It can best be described as a worm within an apple versus throwing out the apple in Roe v. Wade. The court's ruling guarantees that this controversy will continue to roil our nation and will further divide the people.   

While the very people who rallied against those who they claimed would "legislate morality" in the 1980s, their effort to force their moral view under the banner of equal protection is contradictory to the history of the republic. Morality is immutable thus there can never be a state of equality between the moral and immoral. Homosexual marriage is no different. This is why there can never be a compromise such as civil unions. If the basis of one's opposition to homosexual marriage is on the substance of what marriage actually is, what is the purpose of fighting over semantics? The desire of homosexual activists is to eliminate morality from the public arena. For without values, there will be no opposition to their agenda.   

The problem with the homosexual movement and their supporters is their desire to destroy those who have a different legitimate and fundamental view of public policy. Their reliance on calling those who disagree with their position bigots and purveyors of hate reflect the truth of who they really are. They reject the first amendment when it comes to religious liberty and free speech. They believe that equal protection does not apply to those of conscious. They have aligned themselves with extremists under the banner of love. Their strategy is to use any means necessary in order to achieve victory without regard to integrity, decency and those who they harm along the way. Homosexual marriage empowers a radical minority with the ability to decide the liberties of the majority.  

The President represents the greatest failure of an American institution the nation has ever seen. The President's decision to unilaterally declare the DOMA unconstitutional and his refusal to defend the law while his allies were waging a legal battle to overturn it highlight the demise of our constitutional Republic. His desire to pressure the Supreme Court into changing the definition of marriage was clearly acknowledged by the court. “The executive’s failure to defend the constitutionality of an act of Congress based on a constitutional theory not yet established in judicial decisions has created a procedural dilemma. On the one hand, as noted, the government’s agreement with Windsor raises questions about the propriety of entertaining a suit in which it seeks affirmance of an order invalidating a federal law and ordering the United States to pay money. On the other hand, if the executive’s agreement with a plaintiff that a law is unconstitutional is enough to preclude judicial review, then the Supreme Court’s primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law that has inflicted real injury on a plaintiff who has brought a justiciable legal claim would become only secondary to the president’s. This would undermine the clear dictate of the separation-of-powers principle…”

The founding of our nation was based on a moral people. This will not be the first nor will it be the last cultural battle in our history. It will not be decided by the courts or those without integrity, it will be decided by the people. The battle over the definition of marriage will continue.