Dems

By the time this article reaches your hands, President George W. Bush will have endorsed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

The main proponent of this legislation is Marilyn Musgrave, Colorado’s House Representative from the Fourth District. The newly fashioned political fury about gay marriage stems from a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that struck down the state law against gay marriage.

California has recently resurfaced as a battleground for gay rights.

Particular attention has been paid to the confrontation between San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and the state’s governor.

Arnold Schwarzenegger declared on Sunday that he is “very much against” same-sex marriage, comfortably fastening himself to one facet of the Bush re-election agenda: the marriage initiative.

In his annual address, President Bush stated his regard for marriage as “one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization,” and referred to the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996.

The Defense of Marriage Act denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages and provided that same-sex marriage licenses would not carry from state to state. This law, which still stands, holds that homosexual couples are ineligible to receive spousal benefits under Social Security, Medicare, and other federal benefits set aside for married couples.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, and any future legislative initiatives banning gay marriage, plainly violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment prohibits states from making or enforcing any laws that “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens.”

Furthermore, the Constitution proscribes any deprival of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

President Bush pronounced in his State of the Union Address that “the same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God’s sight.” Are not “dignity and value” granted in the sight of the Constitution as well?

Any Constitutional amendment respecting the “sanctity of marriage” needs to provide the equal opportunity to marriage and the equal benefits from marriage to any couple, regardless of their lifestyle.

Furthermore, federal legislation concerning marriage touches on and moves to cross the boundary between national and states’ rights.

The Defense of Marriage Act did not support the enforcement of marriage licenses from state to state, and correctly so.

Individual state legislatures should be allowed to debate and decide this issue with respect to their own constituency.

“On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard,” President Bush asserted on Jan. 19.

A federal amendment, however, banning same-sex marriage would violate the principle of federalism and eliminate the possibility for the public’s opinion to be heard.

Is this a country that considers gay and lesbian couples secondary citizens, disregarded by the Constitution and denied equal rights? Maybe it was.

Today, a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would betray the progress made in the 20th Century, wantonly abandoning its illumination of the 14th Amendment, its evolution of civil rights, and its awareness of federalism.

Let the Constitution stand for itself.

Let individual rights be equalized and balanced with the integrity of this nation’s greatest “institution.”

————————————————————————————-

GOP

In America today, there is a growing crisis. Indeed, it has grown so important that, left unresolved; it could gradually tear down our nation. This crisis has centered on the debate over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

This issue, while serious in itself, is not the crisis to which I refer. Instead, it is the manner in which those who favor homosexual marriage have carried out the usurpation of the law in order to fulfill their desires. For those who have not been keeping up on the news, I will recap:

About three weeks ago in Mass., the state’s Supreme Judicial Court, led by Margaret Marshall, ruled 4-to-3 to overturn a state-wide ban on gay marriage. Their judgment rested upon the fact that, within the Massachusetts Constitution, they found explicit right for gays to marry. So far, the activist judges’ ruling still stands while the State Legislature fights with itself over how to address the issue. Meanwhile, the people of Mass., who overwhelmingly favor the ban on gay marriage, have had their opinion disregarded in favor of the court’s political agenda.

But the transgressions against America’s citizens’ do not end in Mass. Over Valentine’s Day weekend, the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, took it upon himself to ignore state law and grant licenses to gay couples seeking marriage – more than 3,000 so far. The issue was taken to court, but the judge, too afraid to cause further unrest I suspect, declined to rule. Now, the city of San Francisco must wait until at least March 29 for the problem to be resolved, when the case will be heard in front of another judge.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger finally took a stand a couple of days ago, demanding that Newsom to “begin to obey the rule of law.” (In 2000, California passed Proposition 22 by a 2-to-1 margin in a referendum affirming that marriage should only be between a single man and woman.) Once again, it is the citizens who suffer; only this time it’s not only their opinion that is being ignored, but their votes. Thus, the mayor of San Francisco has disobeyed state law and the will of the people.

There are plenty of arguments against same-sex marriage in the first place. If allowed, then why wouldn’t multiple people be allowed to marry, or even family members? Where is the line drawn? Why, after 2,000 years, should we now allow a system that has been the stable basis for society’s family unit to be changed?

All of the above questions and the arguments behind them have become a central concern of many Americans. Indeed, a large majority of America is firmly against same-sex marriages. Unfortunately, their concerns no longer matter, or so is the message of the liberal left, which is willing to usurp the traditional democratic process in order to advance their agenda, even if they are stripping Americans of their sole power in the process: their right to vote.

The gay marriage issue should be handled by individual states based on the needs of the state. The people in their respective states should decide the outcome of the matter that best fits their desires. Supreme Court Justices and mayors should not be creating legislation, breaking state law, and ignoring the people that put them into office. It is the job of the Legislature to write law, not that of the courts. If need be the people can vote on the issue by referendum.

Until this begins to happen, the movement for a national Marriage Amendment to the United States Constitution will continue to gain steam, fueled by fears that courts and mayors will continue to promote themselves and their causes above the wishes of the American people.

America can not tolerate a nation in anarchy. This crisis must be handled swiftly, or the institutions that hold this nation firm will crumble. The rule of law must be respected, as well as our citizen’s right to vote.