Civil Right or Sacred Rite?

By: Craig Chamberlain

The question of gay marriage and the threats towards its opponents(particularly Mormons) show a great deal about both sides and the passion involved in the debate. The left screams that marriage is a civil right that those who oppose gay marriage are no different than those who opposed civil rights for African Americans.

Their logic is faulty. Homosexuals have never suffered the indignities and depredations that African Americans did. There has never been a sign in a business that read “no gays allowed”. A civil right is only being denied if a constitutional right is being denied. The constitution is silent about marriage. The constitution, through the 13th and 14th amendments granted rights to blacks, sadly these rights we largely ignored. The civil rights movement was then necessary to see that constitutional rights were finally adhered to. The civil rights movement was a constitutional rights movement. The rights African Americans were fighting for were written into the constitution in black and white, not made up by some judge with a political agenda.

This being a democracy it is up to the people to speak where the constitution does not. The people have spoken. In every state where the question of marriage was on the ballot the opponents of gay marriage have won. The left in challenging the results of the referendum in court show their contempt for democracy. Apparently the will of the people is only important if the people agree with them.

In their infantile rage the left apparently sees no problem with denying constitutional rights of the people who oppose them. The Mormons of California, who’s only crime was voting according to their moral conscience, have been threatened. Many on the left see no problem in denying them their constitutional rights of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and their right to vote. Or they can only keep them if they exercise them in a way that the left approves of.

Mormons are, in reality, just an easy scapegoat for the left. They can’t really attack any of the other opponents of gay marriage(who, after all, make up a majority of voters). Their real target is the constitution and traditions that birthed it. If there is no constitutional right for what they want they simply will make one up. The left might hate it but the constitution does not address marriage because the definition of marriage was obvious to the founders. Marriage was viewed as a sacred rite, not a civil matter.

Throughout western history marriage was always monogamous. The left wants to wipe out the traditional definition of marriage and the family. If they can do that they feel they can radically remake the country in their image no matter what the constitution says. The traditional religious definition of marriage is under attack because the left cannot stand the idea of allegiance to God over an allegiance to their faith. Marriage really doesn’t have anything to do with it as much as advancing the left wing agenda against traditional beliefs.

All societies have rules in order to prevent anarchy. Society must accept one definition, to maintain order, or accept them all and invite anarchy. If homosexuals can marry why not polygamists? Why not polyandrists? Why not recognize group marriages? Why not let a man marry his car if he wants to while we’re at it? After all, if love is the only criteria for marriage then any feelings of affection could warrant a marriage license.

Where does it end? The left does not have a legal or constitutional argument to stand on. No ones constitutional rights are being violated. It is the opponents of gay marriage who are under threat of having their constitutional rights challenged. Ask the Mormons of California.

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.