Texas Today

Homosexual Marriage vs. Heterosexual Marriage.

As a Christian Constitutionalist this, at first glance, may seem like quite a quagmire. The solution, as I see it, is actually quite simple. As a young Christian my reflexive response used to be the mantra of many people who call themselves Christians, “the sanctity of marriage, between a man and a woman, MUST be preserved as an institution of God.” Indeed, as a Christian, I know it is a sacred unity between a man and a woman instituted by God. However, under our great Constitution, this is NOT a behavior to be legislated and enforced by government. The Constitution and a number of historical facts, I believe, support my above determination.

The first problem we all have with marriage is that it requires a license, which by definition implies a privilege granted by the government to you to do what would otherwise be ILLEGAL, for nominal tax of course. http://dictionary.law.com defines license as “governmental permission to perform a particular act…” When anyone gives you anything (permission, for example), that person or entity has to have the authority to give that something to you. When did government acquire the authority to give permission for you to get married? It sure wasn’t our Constitution, which to my knowledge is the legal document that our government is granted any powers it has by us. Yes, We the People give government the privilege of it’s powers, not the other way around.

George Washington didn’t need permission from his government to marry, why do we? In fact, according to the law of the land during George Washington’s time the only legislative requirements to get married were that you acquired the consent of your future in-laws and that your marriage was posted publicly 5-15 days before the ceremony. From my internet research the government decided to usurp the powers of granting permission to marry during the mid-1800s when most states had laws outlawing marriage between blacks and whites, some states began allowing interracial marriages if you got a license. Eventually, in 1923, this became the status quo for all marriages when the federal government got involved and passed the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act. So the marriage license was born from bad fruit, the Bible says a tree that produces bad fruit cannot produce good fruit.

Adding injury to the insult of the government making yet another perfectly legal act into an illegal one, needing of course, a bureaucracy and taxes to support it, it seems that with this marriage license in some cases the government claims jurisdiction over your kids! Admittedly, I have not done the proper research on these reports, however, knowing how the government operates this does not surprise me a bit.

Although, as a Christian, I cannot endorse homosexual relationships, I also cannot, in good conscience, pervert the Constitution into denying certain American’s from the same freedom, to live their life as they see fit, that I try to enjoy, unless they have committed a criminal act (such as not allowing felons to vote). That said, laws regulating consensual relationships between adults, I believe, is an unconstitutional invasion of American’s privacy. Once that is done, as it has been in the past, you find yourself on a slippery slope sliding directly to tyranny, which cannot be allowed.

Homosexuality is a social issue, which like other social issues, government should not interfere with. If Christians want to oppose homosexuality, I believe the way to do it is through the churches and the market. For example, I don’t shop at Target because of their financial support for many homosexual organizations. Simple as that. There is no need for the ever reaching arm of government to dictate who my fellow citizens decided to fall in love with. One reason, in modern times, churches have not been effective in battling the problems Christians see with homosexuality is the fact that the majority of so called main-stream “Christian” leaders, one recent addition being Ted Haggard, are in fact homosexual along with the most leaders of the political party many so called Christians unfortunately align themselves with, Folly being a recent example. This kind of leadership along with equally polarizing leaders in the homosexual community, I believe, leads to the bitter emotional rampages that happen on both sides, purposefully creating illogical arguments where each opposing group get to race for who’s rights they can take away first. When in reality, it was government’s plan all along to eroded the people’s rights, but what better way to do this than have the people take their own rights away! Genius!

That said, as a Christian, I have dear friends of mine who are of the homosexual persuasion. I don’t approve of their behavior, and I know they don’t approve of some of my behavior. I highly regard their opinion on many issues, as they mine. However, like any average group of people, we have differing opinions on each others choices in life. This doesn’t mean we try to make the government tell the other how to live. We, instead, have rational discussions, exercising our right to free speech, as people should.

My solution for the couples that would like to be legally seen as a single entity in a similar way married couples are seen today, (insurance purposes and power of attorney, for example) is a voluntary signing of an affidavit in a local county courthouse. In this affidavit, basically a sworn oath, you can affirm that you have indeed joined into a union with your partner on a certain date and additionally signed by a witness to a ceremony (btw – being a witness was one of the original duties of the best man and maid of honor). Affidavits are punishable by purgery if you are not truthful, just like in court. This should more than satisfy any legal bindings of a union or marriage for any medical, tax or insurance needs. Politicians should also be required to sign affidavits regarding their campaign promises as well, like David Van Os willing did this past election when he ran for Texas State Attorney General.

Bottom line is that we should stop being tricked into trying to legislate each other’s life and supporting laws that either create precedents to invade everyone’s privacy or out right do invade everyone’s constitutional privacy. Government never keeps itself in check, it is up to us to ensure that it is held to the restrictions the Constitution sets forth.

Ok, I’ve had it with this gay marriage debate.

Today, it seems, a Maryland court is hearing the latest argument for gay marriage—not that anything new’s being said. Well, that’s fine, and to be expected. What ticks me off in this case (as in all cases) is the language that the two sides use.

On the one hand: “‘Why shouldn’t you have the same rights?’”

On the other: “‘Courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental an institution as marriage.’”

The question is not about “rights.” Nobody has the right to a civil marriage. That’s ridiculous. Nobody has the right to tax breaks and all those other lovely things that go along with it. What the government chooses to bestow on certain unions is a question different from rights. It’s a question of benefits. Nobody has the right to benefits. But what they do have a right to are equal benefits.

If the government feels the need to grant certain benefits to one group of people, it must not withhold those benefits from other groups that fall under the same category. That’s why we have Brown v. Board and other cases concerning setups that are “inherently unequal.” Because they aren’t equal.

I’m going with the recent New Jersey ruling on this: you don’t have to call it “marriage,” but if you’re going to grant benefits to one group, they’d better be available for all groups in equivalent situations.

Of course, now New Jersey has the predictable “Constitutional Amendment to Protect Marriage” reaction, and all the other stuff. Well, I really don’t see what the fuss is over one word. I’m in favor of calling it marriage, simply because so many groups seem to hold on to the word as a tool of oppression: “if we don’t call it marriage, then they’re really not equal, right?” seems to be the prevalent self-reassuring attitude in NJ right now (hmm…sounds a little much like “separate-but-equal,” now, doesn’t it?). It’s a shame, but let’s worry about the legal discrimination before we get to the cultural discrimination. Fix one, the other will be fixed down the road.

And going back to the language: no, courts cannot create rights. Neither can Congress. Congress can confer benefits, and the courts can make sure that rights are not being violated. In the case of the sex-based inequalities currently in place, rights are being violated. The details of the benefits are up to Congress, but the rights belong in the courts.