In a very strange short story by author Kurt Vonnegut, the concept of equality is parodied. Harrison Bergeron is the story of a person living in the utopian world of the future, a world where everyone is truly and finally equal under the guidance of the government. Anyone who knows the story knows that the “solution” is a colossal failure. Anyone who knows the story also can see our nation is steadily moving toward that colossal mistake of legislating equality.
When the Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriages are equal to what is defended as “traditional marriages,” the Court invalidates our Constitution and disassembles the Bill of Rights. The argument that marriage is simply a religious right misses the point of discussion. The concept of marriage has now become a legal right, guaranteed, just as the right to privacy. It is created out of thin air by an unelected judiciary that has become a legislative body with little ability to be challenged.
The legal arguments are controlled by two theories of law. The first, is that the Supreme Court in citing cases such as Roe v. Wade have established fundamental rights for people, some of them are enumerated as stated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The rights the Court has recently established are not enumerated: the right to privacy, the right to marry. Prior to this decision the right to proscribe or define marriage was under the consideration of the states. The Federal government passed the Defense of Marriage Act, although it had little authority to do so. So, the first argument before the Court was whether the states had the right to regulate marriage or whether the right to marry was a fundamental right that the states cannot regulate. The Court found that the right is fundamental. Just like that the Court legislates a decision contrary to the will of people in many states. Don’t listen to the arguments that a majority of states allow same sex marriage. Those states have simply been the victims of lower level courts and judges who have dictated law to the people. If a legislature does pass laws pertaining to same sex marriage, according to the 9th and 10th Amendments they are allowed to do so.
The second argument to consider is whether this new fundamental right is being applied equally to all people. This argument pertains to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The legal reasoning of the Supreme Court in this case has been applied to many important SCOTUS cases: Brown v. Board of Ed.; Roe v. Wade; Bush v. Gore; Reed v. Reed; and University of California v. Bakke.
In 14th amendment cases the Court looks at the case from the perspective of citizenship and whether a citizen is being treated fairly under similar circumstances. This is commonly referred to as the equal protection clause. The interesting part of these cases is that the Court has never required that persons be treated equal, but instead that they require that persons be treated fairly.
Therefore, if the states had preempted the Supreme Court by passing legislation that would have established the “rights” that were denied to LG couples through a different process, such as “marital unions” or “civil unions,” then the defendant’s in those cases would have no standing in the courts because the legislatures would have established those transferred inheritance, divorce, health benefits, and tax rights to LG couples without disturbing the significant purpose of defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
Laws can still be passed in state legislatures to provide those transferred spousal rights to same sex couples without destroying traditional marriage. The reasoning that allows differentiating traditional marriage from “civil or marital unions” is the simple biological fact that marriage establishes the formula for procreation. Marriage as defined between a man and a woman is designed to create a family not just a couple. No matter how hard a sex couple tries that is one area that will remain exclusive to a traditional marriage. That exclusive factor of marriage has been the foundation of civilized society. Never mind the discussions about surrogate parenting, or the fact that many births are out of wedlock, the natural result of a marriage is not a couple but a family. The high rate of out of wedlock children is just another part of the process our society has accepted in its flawed reasoning that all people are equal. The utopian society that liberals and progressives have imagined leaves in its desecrated wake the foundations of society that once made us a civilized people. The Supreme Court has simply entered that political destination while denying the laws of nature.