Bonkers’: Constitutional experts reply to Obama’s belief that the Constitution protects gay ‘marriag

LifeSiteNews ^ | 10/21/14 | Kirsten Andersen

[wagglebee]

As one state after another sees their marriage protection laws fall to activist judges citing the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment as justification for redefining marriage, President Barack Obama has gone further than the Supreme Court, insisting there is a constitutional “right” to same-sex “marriage” in an interview with The New Yorker.

“Ultimately, I think the Equal Protection Clause does guarantee same-sex marriage in all 50 states,” Obama told the magazine. But he said he respects the Supreme Court for avoiding a final ruling on the issue, saying he sees their procrastination as a “strategic” move to allow public support for same-sex marriage to build before making a decision.

“[Y]ou know, courts have always been strategic,” Obama said. “There have been times where the stars were aligned and the Court, like a thunderbolt, issues a ruling like Brown v. Board of Education, but that’s pretty rare. And, given the direction of society, for the Court to have allowed the process to play out the way it has may make the shift less controversial and more lasting.”

He made a similar argument in a 2001 public radio interview, in which he endorsed judicial and executive activism.

But two constitutional scholars with the Ruth Institute Circle of Experts strongly disagree with the president’s assessment of the courts – and his assertion that the Constitution protects homosexual “marriage.”

Bill Duncan, president of the Marriage Law Foundation, told LifeSiteNews that the 14^th Amendment has nothing to do with same-sex “marriage” or sexual license in general.

“The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 in the wake of the Civil War to ensure states would no longer create legal disabilities for their citizens solely because of their race,” Duncan said via email. “There is nothing in the text or history of the amendment to support the idea that it could be read to require states to ignore the realities of the difference between men and women and children's entitlement to be raised by a married mother and father.”

“Recent court decisions purporting to interpret the amendment to require same sex marriage treat the amendment like an empty vessel into which judges can pour their own opinions,” Duncan said. “That is a matter of seizing power not interpreting the law.”

Lynn Wardle, a professor of law at Brigham Young University, agreed with Duncan’s view on the matter.

President Obama’s statement “is a tragic, but not unexpected distortion of the 14^th Amendment,” Wardle said. “I don’t see anything in the text of the 14^th Amendment or in the history of the 14^th Amendment, or in the development as applied in the courts of the 14^th Amendment, until the last few months when some federal courts that are sort of on the fringe have gone bonkers on this.”

Wardle said that any confusion over the purpose of the equal protection clause is owed partially to the somewhat vague way in which it was written.

“This is not the first time the 14^th Amendment has been twisted and distorted,” Wardle said, “but it is probably the most serious distortion that I can think of since Roe v. Wade in 1973.”

“The 14^th Amendment has been captured and co-opted by so many different interest groups that it would be surprising if the gay ‘marriage’ groups didn’t use it,” Wardle said. “Unfortunately, it also illustrates the problem: The 14^th Amendment really doesn’t have much real content. The content is poured into the amendment by whoever is making the argument [and] by whoever is reading the amendment. That distinguishes it from most other…amendments, where there was a very specific purpose or concern or problem that was being addressed.”

According to Wardle, the propensity for special interest groups, including homosexual activists, to try and use the 14^th Amendment to justify their goals cheapens the true history behind the amendment.

“The 14^th Amendment was not intended to mandate states to legalize same-sex ‘marriage,’” Wardle said. “The 14^th Amendment was intended to guarantee racial equality.”

“We fought the bloodiest, longest, most deadly war in our history – nearly 600,000 American men left dead on battlefields – in order to establish the proposition that all men are created equal, and that race is not a constitutionally permissible basis for government to discriminate,” he said.

“To say that [the 14^th Amendment] also mandates the legalization of same-sex ‘marriages’ is to denigrate the purpose of that amendment, and the terrible, horrific cost that was paid in order to get it approved and become part of our Constitution.”

[wagglebee]

“Recent court decisions purporting to interpret the amendment to require same sex marriage treat the amendment like an empty vessel into which judges can pour their own opinions,” Duncan said. “That is a matter of seizing power not interpreting the law.”

Exactly!

[wagglebee]

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

[P-Marlowe]

Ultimately if the Supreme Court were to take up the issue and decide that there is no constitutional right to homosexual marriage, then all these marriages in all these states that have laws on the books prohibiting homosexual marriage (like California) would be void and the laws would be put into effect as if they were never overturned.

This is why these State Attorney Generals (like in Arizona) are not attempting to challenge these rulings. They are all either overtly or secretly opposed to the will of the people of their states.

The Supreme Court turning down the Homosexual Marriage cases was an act of Cowardice. They know they would probably have to rule that there is no such constitutional right and what they are doing as a group is to wait until it is “settled law” then they can rely on the fact that this is something that “The American People overwhelmingly support” even though they have never supported it at all.

[SECURE AMERICA]

Now I am no rocket scientist and I have not recently stayed at a Holiday Inn.
However. If Mr President Bozo the Clown thinks the U.S. Constitution protects homosexual marriage perhaps he can explain why there were ZERO homosexual marriages during the time the Constitution was written and why ZERO occurred for hundreds of years there after.
Come on Bozo. Give it your best shot...........

[SECURE AMERICA]

Picture this.
Two men walk into the building where Founders are drafting up the Constitution.
“ Hey guys we want to get married so can you put something in there to cover that”?
Later that day it was announced that the winter food stores where going to last a few weeks longer then previously stated.

[lentulusgracchus]

President Obama’s statement “is a tragic, but not unexpected distortion of the 14th Amendment,” Wardle said. “I don’t see anything in the text of the 14th Amendment or in the history of the 14th Amendment, or in the development as applied in the courts of the 14th Amendment, until the last few months when some federal courts that are sort of on the fringe have gone bonkers on this.”

Walk light, guys, other people have 14A rights too .... to pork kids under 12, to "skin some chicken" as they say. To do all kinds of illegal sh** under the protection of "black rage" theory, race theory, liberation theology, and whatever you got. To kill white cops and passersby with impunity. What you got? What you got?

[oldtech]

“Ultimately, I think the Equal Protection Clause does guarantee same-sex marriage in all 50 states” Says Barack Obama. What about the other 7 states,genius?

[2ndDivisionVet]