Search AFA

SCOTUS Takes Equal Protection Clause Out of Context

Friday, May 8, 2015 @ 8:54 AM
SCOTUS Takes Equal Protection Clause Out of Context Blogger points out the absurdity of using the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment for the same sex marriage debate.
Currently in all 50 states there is equal protection no matter a person's sexual preference. In every state in the Union any person can marry someone of the opposite sex. - Walker Wildmon

By hearing arguments for same-sex marriage as a potential Constitutional “Right" under the 14th Amendment the Supreme Court is taking the Equal Protection Clause out of context. The Equal Protection Clause (EPC) of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution originated in 1868. It was designed to provide “equal application”of the laws. This clause originated for the sole purpose of civil rights for African Americans who were being discriminated against and denied basic rights. Simply, the law wasn’t being applied equally to each race.

The thought that the EPC is now being used in the marriage debate is absurd. For nearly 150 years the EPC of the fourteenth amendment has been used in courts to end racial discrimination and make America a place where people from each race and background can have the law applied equally. For over a century the EPC has been interpreted to protect against racial discrimination; not same-sex “marriage”.

Currently in all 50 states there is equal protection no matter a person's sexual preference. In every state in the Union any person can marry someone of the opposite sex. There is equal application of marriage laws. No one is denied the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Any party to sue the state for not having marriage “equality”or allowing same-sex marriage based on the fourteenth amendment should be denied by the court for not having standing. Same-sex marriage is protected nowhere in the Constitution therefore, there is no Constitutional standing to sue. After all the law is “equally applied”to all citizens regarding marriage. Each citizen can benefit from heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman. No person is denied that right.

Legal scholars would dispute my premise and say that homosexual plaintiffs are suffering “injury”and being denied “fundamental rights”to marry. Moral standards do not bring about injury.  In fact, they prevent injury or harm. For the past two centuries in the United States, sexually deviant behaviors such as homosexuality, pedophilia, and incest have been outlawed in states across the country. Maybe legal scholars and judges have been painting over the Constitution with too wide a brush. Factually, by legalizing sexually deviant behavior we are putting the deviant actors at risk for injury. The CDC has a whole section devoted to addressing HIV/AIDS because of sexually deviant behavior. Should the state be in the business of legalizing unnatural marriage when same-sex relationships put these plaintiffs at a higher risk for HIV than a heterosexual married couple? If somehow denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional, then not allowing a dad to marry his daughter and not allowing a person to marry their animal must also be unconstitutional according to this premise. If we do not uphold marriage as one man and one woman then each of these scenarios is open season in the legal system.

If the U.S. Supreme Court decides in June to interpret the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee the constitutionality (legality) of same-sex marriage, then the court will invalidate itself. It will prove that its knowledge of natural law is surface level. The court will also prove that its historical knowledge of the 14th amendment is skewed. We will see states defy the court because 31 states have voter-approved amendments that have agreed with Gods design for marriage. God created marriage and it is His alone to define, not the Supreme Court of the United States. When it comes to the court weighing in on an institution God has already decided maybe the court isn’t so supreme after all.

Walker Wildmon Assistant to the President More Articles SHOW COMMENTS
Please Note: We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the content. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at the author or other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved.

CONNECT WITH US

Find us on social media for the latest updates.

SUPPORT AFA

MAKE A DONATION Donor Related Questions: DONORSUPPORT@AFA.NET

CONTACT US

P.O. Drawer 2440 Tupelo, Mississippi 38803 662-844-5036 FAQ@AFA.NET
Copyright ©2017 American Family Association. All rights reserved.