By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer,
on Facebook at “Focal Point”
The battle in federal courts
over state marriage amendments has moved to the next level, as appeals courts
now review rulings issued by lone district judges.
Should one appeals court uphold
a state marriage amendment and another overturn one, the issue is virtually
guaranteed ultimately to make its way to the Supreme Court.
Given the pro-homosexual and
anti-family bias of the Supreme Court, as illustrated in its DOMA ruling, the
Court is almost sure to impose sodomy-based marriage by tyrannical judicial
fiat on the entire country. And the United States will take another lurching
plunge into the abyss of moral darkness.
The most important immediate
question, however, is whether state marriage amendments should even be in federal
court. The answer is a resounding “No.”
Article I, Section 8 lists all
the powers of actions “We the People” have delegated to the central government.
Dictating marriage policy to the states is not among them. This means quite
simply that the federal government has zero authority to meddle in state
domestic policy. As in zip, nada, zilch.
The only legal question that can
be asked regarding a state marriage amendment is whether it was enacted
according to the process outlined in that state’s constitution. That is a
question that should ultimately be the prerogative of that state’s supreme
court. If that court rules that the proper process was followed - the issue is
purely a matter of process not policy - then that should be the end of the
Federal courts have no
constitutional jurisdiction here, and thus it is a gross violation of the
system of government created by the Founders for a federal judge or appeals
court even to accept one of these cases for adjudication.
The just, proper and constitutional
response of a federal court, when one of these marriage amendment cases is
presented, should be quite simple and direct: we have no jurisdiction here.
It’s no use citing the 14th
Amendment. This amendment requires that each state provide the “equal
protection of the laws” of that state to every American citizen within its
borders. But if the laws are applied equally, if every citizen is equal under
the law, if the same rules apply to everyone, then there cannot possibly be a
14th Amendment violation.
It is a simple matter of fact
that homosexuals already possess full marriage equality in all 50 states. They
can get married, exactly like everyone else, to one, non-relative adult of the
Marriage has never been an
unrestricted proposition. You can’t marry two people, you can’t marry your
sister, you can’t marry your mom, you can’t marry your daughter or anyone
else’s child, and you can’t marry an animal, even though a Democrat lawmaker in Alabama wants you to. In
other words, the same marriage standard applies to everyone.
So when it comes to the “right”
of homosexuals to marry each other (there never can be a “right” to same sex
marriage since it is impossible for there to be moral or constitutional “right”
to engage in sexually deviant behavior), the only possible question for a
federal court would be whether a state’s marriage law is the same for everybody.
If it is, the discussion is over.
If the right to marry is
reserved under a state’s constitution for individuals of opposite genders, and
that policy is applied equally, especially with regard to race (given the
historical context of the 14th Amendment) then there is simply no constitutional
violation. Everyone is equal before the law. If the same law applies to every
citizen in the state, then justice is being served.
Since homosexuals already
possess full marriage equality, what they want is not equal rights but special
rights, “rights” granted on the basis of sexual deviancy. They want special
treatment that is not granted to would-be polygamists, pedophiles, and
practitioners of incest and bestiality.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t
guarantee anybody special rights, it guarantees equal rights. Homosexual
activists have no case and no constitutional right even to be in federal court.
The sooner federal appeals courts recognize that the better.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or
American Family Radio.)