Same-Sex Marriage ‘Wags the Dog’

Same-sex Marriage 'Wags the Dog'

One of the chief tenets of a Democratic Republic, is “rule of law,” not the rule of lawyers. When same-sex marriage has been put to a vote state-by-state, the people of those states have generally said that a marriage is a union “between a man and a woman.” When lawyers and judges arbitrarily overrule the will of the people and pander to a full two percent of the population, same-sex marriage is wagging the dog.

In Texas for instance, a 2005 constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman passed with 76 percent approval. That is how a democratic republic is supposed to work. The merits of an idea or an ideology must be persuasive. If a concept like same-sex marriage is that fair and that right, why would it require judicial fiat to make it a reality? If the constitutionality of same-sex marriage was so self-evident, why are only a handful of liberal judges able to recognize it?

Over the past two decades, 31 state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage have been passed into law – with the possible exception of Hawaii’s amendment which did not make same-sex marriage unconstitutional, it merely allowed the state to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. It is easy to assume that those states, and the citizens who live in them, passed those amendments so the will of the people would be clear and unambiguous. Amendments to a state constitution are never capriciously enacted on a whim. The same cannot be said of individual judges “deciding” that same-sex marriages should be allowed.

This is not to say that the arguments for same-sex marriage should not be heard. Nor can it be said that those arguments have not been heard, either. The marketing and lobbying efforts of same-sex marriage proponents have been known to escalate into direct violence against their opposition. Most news coverage and reporting on the topic has been wildly sympathetic and in undisguised support of same-sex marriage. Hollywood has also been doing its part for the gay agenda, normalizing homosexuality – if not outright aggrandizing it – for at least the past 30 years. One homosexual professional athlete was even praised publicly by president Obama, for his “bravery.” So it cannot be said that the gay rights community has been receiving bad press. All of which means that it’s very surprising that same-sex marriage has been required to “wag the dog” of the American people.

Yet, even with all of the positive social influence and unstinting support the homosexual community has been receiving, the same-sex marriage issue has failed at the ballot box, again and again. Of course, the state of Minnesota in 2012 rejected a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. 53 percent of the population of Minnesota had been effectively convinced that same-sex marriage was an acceptable institution. The gay community, justifiably, reveled in that vote. The Democratic process worked, the will of the people was put to a vote, and the population of Minnesota had its say.

Same-sex Marriage 'Wags the Dog'

One of the greatest freedoms offered in America since its founding, is the right to travel and relocate at will. No free citizen of the United States is barred from association with whatever group they choose. The population of Nevada for instance, is neither expected nor required to behave exactly as the population of New Hampshire. Every city in every state of the union has its own unique personality, distinct and separate from all others. American citizens have carte blanche opportunity to live in the communities which best fit their ethics and ideals. Conversely, those individual communities should be under no compunction to adjust their ideals to suit the desires of a small handful of individuals.

This latest spate of Judiciary caveat, while hiding under the guise of “equal rights for the minority,” tramples roughshod over the rights of every individual who cast a vote in their state to ensure that a marriage remains a union between one woman and one man. Arbitrarily overturning the will of the people, especially when that will has been codified as constitutional law, is the very definition of tyranny. Which says nothing of the trampled rights and religious freedoms of the individuals who are opposed to serving the needs of same-sex marriages.

Forcing the whole populations – who live where they feel most comfortable based on the prevailing attitudes of the region – to accept the caprice of a decidedly slender minority, makes same-sex marriage the “wag the dog” champion of the new decade.

Commentary by Ben Gaul

Sources:

Washington Post     ABC     LA Times     Heritage Foundation     Wiki

12 Responses to "Same-Sex Marriage ‘Wags the Dog’"

  1. Lindsey   March 2, 2014 at 11:35 pm

    That is the judges job to decide when someone brings a case to the court such as this to decide if the law stands up the written laws aka the bill of rights and the US Constitution or not. Most of these laws that have fallen did not hold up to the US Constitution on the 14th Amendment Equal under the Law. If Heterosexual people can get married and a couple who are in a particular state cannot because of a state law that law is in Violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and therefore is Null and Void and Is ILLEGAL and Un-Constitutional. Equal Services, Equal Rights, Equal marriage nothing less and nothing more. We are not asking for special privileges or special rights. These judges some of them are elected or put into place by the president of the united states or past presidents. The writer of this article is right the will of the people is to have a vote on laws but the courts can over rule that vote when the law being voted on does not stand up to the scrutiny and legality of the US Constitution. Federal Laws Over Rule States Rights at times.

    Reply
  2. Fairy Larry   March 2, 2014 at 11:00 pm

    You are a bogus blog…you will not post comments that prove you spew irrelevant libertarian drivel and your blog post flies in the face of civil law

    Civil rights have always been legislated never voted upon
    Slavery ended with an Executive Order
    Women Suffrage, Civil Rights Act and Disability Act were all legislated. NO VOTE

    I understand you do not approve of our rule of constitutional and civil law but that does not negate the fact that that is how our constitutional and civil is addressed

    Majority has NEVER voted for minority rights…NEVER

    Reply
  3. Fairy Larry   March 2, 2014 at 8:35 pm

    If the minority depended on the majority for their rights the minority would have no rights

    Civil Rights are not voted upon but legislated

    Slavery ended with an Executive Order…NO VOTE
    Women’s Suffrage-Legislated…NO VOTE
    Civil Rights Act-Legislated…NO VOTE
    Disability Act-Legislated…NO VOTE

    A Marriage License is a Civil Document
    Issued in a Civil Court.
    By a Civil Court Judge
    Filed by a Civil Court Clerk.
    Its a Civil Matter

    The Supreme Court will flip the country.
    Your acceptance IS NOT required

    Its a civil matter and will require NO VOTE

    Assimilate or dissipate

    Reply
  4. Fairy Larry   March 2, 2014 at 8:30 pm

    Your not allowing a rebuttal because you know you wrote drivel and I burned you on your stupidity of civil law..where is my original comment

    Reply
  5. Fairy Larry   March 2, 2014 at 8:28 pm

    Why do you not post my comment

    Reply
  6. Fairy Larry   March 2, 2014 at 8:27 pm

    Again. Where is my original comment?

    Reply
  7. Fairy Larry   March 2, 2014 at 8:26 pm

    Where is my comment?

    Reply
  8. Fairy Larry   March 2, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    A Marriage License is a Civil Document
    Issued in a Civil Court.
    By a Civil Court Judge
    Filed by a Civil Court Clerk.
    Its a Civil Matter

    Civil rights are NOT voted upon they are legislated
    Slavery ended because of Executive Order…NO VOTE
    Women’s Suffrage-Legislated…NO VOTE
    Civil Rights Act-Legislated…NO VOTE
    Disability Act-Legislated…NO VOTE

    If the minority depended on the majority for rights the minority would posses no rights

    SSM-Will come to be by SC decree…NO VOTE

    ITS A CIVIL MATTER

    Whoever wrote this drivel of a post is a simplistic simpleton with irrelevant Libertarian bs ideology…and no doubt a bigoted losing homophobic breeder

    To bad for the Jesus Junkies..
    Assimilate or dissipate..I could give a flip which you choose

    Reply
  9. Ben Gaul   March 2, 2014 at 12:19 pm

    Supreme Courts are usually called upon to determine a law’s constitutionality. Not individual “activist” judges who dictate according to their whim not constitutional law or precedent.

    If constitutional amendments defining a marriage as a union between one man and one woman are so blatantly and obviously unconstitutional, why are we just now finding that out?

    Reply
  10. Czerny   March 1, 2014 at 12:46 pm

    Sooooooo when I point out that the author fails to understand that judges overturn laws that are unconstitutional they refuse to post that comment. Interesting.

    Reply
    • Ben Gaul   March 2, 2014 at 12:24 pm

      Czerny, I personally encourage counterpoint comments on my articles. If you go through life only speaking to people who agree with you, you will never learn anything new.

      I have looked in our system, in the spam file and in the trash file. No other comments show previous to the 12:46 PM comment you made March 1, on this post. Your computer and WordPress may have had an argument, too.

      Reply
  11. Czerny   March 1, 2014 at 12:34 pm

    The author neglects to mention that judges exist to rule on the constitutionality of law. Regardless of how many people vote to pass a law that legalizes discrimination, it doesn’t make it right and that is why judges overturn them.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.