Next week, the United States Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments surrounding the constitutionality of California’s proposition 8, a pro-marriage amendment passed by the voters of the Golden State in 2008. This common sense state constitutional amendment, passed 52% to 48%, affirmed that marriage is considered the union of a man and woman in California. Though this is a much slimmer margin than the 78%-22% vote here in South Carolina in favor of a similar amendment, it was a decisive electoral victory for marriage. Nevertheless, as Democrats seem only to believe in democracy when it suits their purposes, everyone from the President to GLAAD (Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) is lined-up to pressure the US Supreme Court to nullify the will of the people.
At the same time that liberals claim that pro-marriage amendments are “unconstitutional,” they try and paint any supporter of natural marriage as a pro-slavery segregationist who adamantly opposes civil rights. Such statements aren’t only untrue, they’re downright slanderous. First off, it’s not “unconstitutional” for a state to amend its own constitution. Marriage is not a federal prerogative under the United States Constitution, so the only unconstitutional action in this entire debate is the left’s attempt to use the federal court to strike down state laws without jurisdiction. The only way that marriage would become a federal issue is if the Congress, together with the President, and the support of two-thirds of the states, ratified a constitutional amendment instating same-sex marriage under the constitution. Since forty-one of fifty states have passed pro-marriage amendments, including liberal havens like California, the pro-homosexual lobby realizes this is simply impossible. Thus, democracy be damned, they’re pushing for a complete violation of the tenth amendment and any sense of state authority.
Make no mistake about it, if the US Supreme Court strikes down California’s proposition 8 as unconstitutional, it will effectively nullify forty-one state laws, including ours in South Carolina. So, let’s dispense with any false notion that pro-marriage state laws and amendments are unconstitutional under the US Constitution. Furthermore, as to the slanderous claim that pro-marriage supporters are the same as slaveholders and segregationists, the most pro-marriage voting demographic in the United States is the African-American community. Do liberal Democrats really want to take the position that African-Americans are pro-slavery racists and segregationists? I would certainly hope not, as such an implication is racially insensitive and downright offensive. Such statements are nothing more than an attempt to hijack the noble Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s, led by a pro-faith, pro-family, pro-freedom leader like Martin Luther King, Jr., to provide political cover for their “progressive” agenda that most Americans oppose.
If the US Supreme Court strikes down Proposition 8, the decision will mean to marriage what Roe vs. Wade meant to abortion. Just as Roe was a stunning act of judicial activism, in defiance of the Constitutional separation of powers, so will such a ruling against Prop 8, once again, nullify the will of the people and judicially impose an inherently immoral institution. If the US Supreme Court acts in such defiance of its constitutionally defined role, I would call on the US House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings into the Justices who vote for such a power grab on the grounds of judicial overreach. Regardless of one’s position on the issue of sexuality and marriage, such a stunning act of judicial activism would represent a threat to the very fabric of the Republic, not to mention marriage and the family.
There’s a lot of disinformation floating around in the public arena right now with regard to marriage. One is accused of opposing civil rights and equality if he or she supports natural marriage, and doesn’t believe that same-sex marriage should be legalized. Such accusations are red herrings (false arguments) that confuse discrimination against people with discrimination between behaviors. Discrimination against people is always wrong, discriminating between behaviors is expected. For example, it is immoral and unconstitutional to have one set of laws for one race, and another set of laws for another. But, it is inherently wise to discriminate, as with speed limits, between safe speeds and reckless driving. Supporters of traditional marriage are in favor of equal rights for all Americans, and defending natural marriage is not a threat to equality.
We are talking about biology, not bigotry.
Let’s take a stand for marriage, and let our US Representatives and Senators know that we expect accountability for the Supreme Court if they attempt to drown out the voice of the people…again.