Love Didn’t Win—It Was Redefined

“Love wins” is the hashtag of choice for those in support of the newest Supreme Court decision that passed that legislative body by a 5-4 vote. If you’re not content with that, you’re just an evil bigot who needs to shut up and support this new legislation. Forget the fact that you have very rational reasons for keeping marriage between a man and a woman: genderless marriage changes the cultural understanding of marriage from the well being of children to merely the romantic desires of adults. For kids who all deserve a mom and a dad and need a culture to support that, love hasn’t won.

Each side on this issue believes the other side is wrong. There is a moral judgment being made whether you are for or against redefining marriage. Morality is always legislated (or judicially imposed). So what is the right morality?

The Supreme Court has told us. Five justices imposed their own morality that elevates homosexuality to a virtue in our society. They say states can’t merely permit homosexual behavior (a neutral position); states must now promoteit by granting benefits and, in Justice Kennedy’s words, “dignity” through the most “profound” union of marriage.

Those who don’t agree with this new morality imposed by the court are, in effect, the new sinners motivated by “disrespect” and “animosity” (“animosity” comes from Kennedy’s Lawrence decision—precedent he cited to justify his own animosity toward opponents of genderless marriage). Yes, unfortunately the Court smears all opponents to its new morality with the same judgmental bigotry it says it detests.

This raises a profound question that is central to this decision and every decision we make in politics. What is our standard? By what standard do we judge something right and its opposite wrong? By what standard do five justices elevate homosexuality to a virtue and declare any opposition to that position “animosity“ and “disrespect” toward people who identify as homosexual?

The standard should have been the Constitution, but the Constitution was ignored in this case. Justice Roberts rightfully wrote in dissent, “The Constitution had nothing to do with it.” (Roberts ignored the clear reading of the law in the Obamacare case, but at least he got it right this time.) While the majority said they consulted the Constitution, Kennedy actually spent most of his opinion citing his own horrendously argued previous opinions that also ignored or distorted the real Constitution.

When you look at the real Constitution (the one the people actually passed, not the “evolving” one invented in the minds of politically motivated judges), it’s easy to see why this court is wrong. When the 14^th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state, and women and blacks didn’t even have the right to vote. If the “equal protection” clause of the 14^th Amendment didn’t even ensure a woman’s right to vote, it certainly doesn’t ensure a woman’s right to marry another woman!

And by Kennedy’s own admission just two years ago in the Windsor decision, marriage is a state, not a federal issue (unless a law violates the 14^th amendment’s prohibition of racial discrimination, something that was not in play in this case). Now suddenly two years later, Kennedy, along with his mini legislature, decides that everyone, including himself, has been interpreting the 14^th Amendment incorrectly for 147 years!

Want to give women and blacks the right to vote? Then amend the Constitution (which the people did). Want to make marriage a federal rather than a state issue, and change it into a genderless institution? Then the people need to amend the Constitution.

But the Court decided to ignore all that. Kennedy and his anti-democracy cohorts decided that they were the new standard. Not the Constitution. Not the people. Not God or His natural law, which gives us the “self-evident” truth that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are profoundly different in many ways, most importantly by their capacity to create and nurture children.

The personal opinions of five unelected justices now comprise the new standard that 320 million people must obey. That’s right friends, after telling us in 1992 that everyone had “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” Justice Kennedy and his cohorts have abandoned that self-defeating psychobabble and imposed on the entire nation their own meaning of marriage. Even if you are for genderless marriage, the fact that five unelected people think that their personal opinions are the standard for the rest of us should scare you.

If five people can ignore the Constitution and redefine the institution that holds together the foundation of civilization— the biological two-parent family—then no law or liberty is safe. That includes free speech and the free exercise of religion. (They are coming after those next.)

“Oh, but we have the Bill of Rights,” you say. “They can’t take those away.”

They already have to a certain extent. The issues reserved for the people and the states—which include marriage and almost everything else—have been taken from us by the mini-legislature. With this group it doesn’t matter what the Constitution actually says. It doesn’t matter what laws you pass or what the words mean. It doesn’t matter that we are supposed to be governed by the rule of law not the whims of men. The whims of five people are now supreme—unless governors decide to evoke the Tenth Amendment and nullify this decision for their states, which they should. Is there a governor who will save this country from an imperial court? Is there an Andrew Jackson in a governor’s mansion anywhere?

The words of John Adams couldn’t be more fitting: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Love hasn’t won—the immoral gods on the Supreme Court just changed its definition.

" If the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment didn’t even ensure a woman’s right to vote, it certainly doesn’t ensure a woman’s right to marry another woman!"

Another way to look at the 14th Amendment’s (14A) equal protections clause is this. Noting, as indicated in the OP, that state sovereignty-respecting justices upheld state laws that discriminated on the basis of sex and race after 14A was ratified, the equal protections clause can be thought of as requiring the states to apply their discrimination laws equally to all citizens.

”… (unless a law violates the 14th amendment’s prohibition of racial discrimination, something that was not in play in this case)."

Note that the only race-related right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect is voting rights as evidenced by the 15th Amendment. So state voting laws that discriminate on the basis of race are the only types of race-related state laws that the Supremes can find unconstitutional imo.

In other words, federal laws that protect race on any basis other than voting rights are not constitutional imo, corrupt federal lawmakers probably making such laws to win votes from low-information voters.

Also, activist justices wrongly ignored that 14A applies only those rights to the states that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect. This is evidenced by the “privileges or immunities” term in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

Although some people will argue that the privileges or immunities wording of Section 1 is not a reference to constitutionally enumerated rights, the congressional record shows that that is exactly what John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, was referring to when he wrote that expression into Section 1.

"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States [emphases added]." — John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe

And if Bingham’s reference to the first eight amendments is not a good enough example that the privileges or immunities referred to in Section 1 of 14A means constitutionally enumerated rights, and only constitutionally enumerated rights, then consider another clarification by Bingham, also from the congressional record.

“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” —John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)

Also, note that regardless that activist justices have been known to use the 9th Amendment as an excuse to create new PC rights outside the framework of the Constitution, justices probably don’t want citizens to know that there is nothing stopping the states from exercising their constitutional Article V power to expressly amend new rights to the Constitution.

Regarding the Supreme Court’s scandalous legalization of gay marriage from the bench, the bottom line is what’s worse, corrupt justices who lie about what the Constitution says, or citizens who don’t study the Constitution and its history for themselves so that they know when activist justices are lying to them about the Constitution?

The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and activist justices along with it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.