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.
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