The gay marriage debate currently being waged in America is a difficult path to follow. It has thousands of twists and turns, and even more thoughts to be pondered and considered.
This entire debate, and many other hotly contested debates, comes from something that began more than 200 years ago. This something is the process of "Judicial review," a power not granted in the Constitution, but rather a power the United States Supreme Court developed for itself in 1803.
Judicial Review is the process by which a court determines that a law violates either the function or the will of our Constitution, and casts the law aside. It has had more detrimental effects than positive.
For all of its good effects (Brown v. Board of Education) it has its negatives (Roe V. Wade). But in the end, the entire gay marriage debate springs from this.
What has stimulated the most recent wave of action against gay marriage is the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court that the law developed in that state defining a marriage as a union between a man and a woman violates the state constitution. Judicial Review at work; thwarting the will of the people and subjugating it to the will of a few judges.
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. In California, we have a state which made gay marriage illegal by a voter initiative. This wasn't some right-wing legislature that made this decision; it was the citizens of the state, but in the end it doesn't really matter what the people want. Mayor Gavin Newsom has violated California law by issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals wishing to be wed. According to the law, he is in violation and should be ordered to stop, possibly being arrested, but activist judges in California are dragging their feet, refusing to stop acts that violate state law.
In Indiana, our law banning gay marriage is being challenged. Last week, state republicans attempted to bring a "blast" motion to the floor which would have resulted in a constitutional amendment, thus prohibiting the state supreme court from overruling the will of the people. The democrats in this state have stopped this motion from even being brought to a vote.
Last week, the president of The United States gave his support to a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This amendment is the only way to supersede radical liberal judges who do not care about the will of the people, only about implementing their personal agenda. This amendment is not hateful or divisive. It does not ban civil unions; an arrangement that offers ALL of the same benefits homosexuals allegedly seek, without cheapening the institution of marriage. The amendment does defend the institution of marriage and keep it from being expanded to include one man and three women, a man and his dog, or a man and his daughter.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Its roots are in religious law, not that of the secular government. If homosexuals want to make marriage legal, they should do so through the state legislatures or through the United States legislative branch. Unfortunately, they have chosen to use the will of a select few liberal judges to overrule the clear majority of American people. That should be unconstitutional.
Write to Russell at rlg@temporalfront.com
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
