Investigative Report:
God v. The Constitution...Part 1 of 2
By: Diane Sori and Craig Andresen / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on CPR Worldwide Media
cprworldwidemedia.net
Let's start with the bottom line...the 'social issues' belong to the
states...period. And anyone who says otherwise does NOT know the
Constitution...you know...that pesky little document Obama so loves to
trample on.
The Constitution...the very document that defines our freedom and
protects us from a tyrannical government (that is until Obama came
along)...clearly and unequivocally states which powers will be delegated
by law to each branch of government. And while amendments to the
Constitution have been added that deal with specific 'human rights'
(rights believed to belong equally to every person) those amendments
still rightfully place limits on government powers in regards to those
rights. And the ubber-religious far right, and even some centrist
conservatives, do not understand that when 'social issues' cross the
line into political fodder they themselves become what's legally
referred to as 'constitutionally improper.' And neither the federal
government nor Obama himself...even when yielding his trusty pen and his
phone... can legally choose which Constitutionally given 'human rights'
to focus on...to fixate on...over the others. But the delegation of the
so-called 'social issues' still must adhere with the Constitution not
with Obama or with the socially conscious and many times judgmental
ubber-religious far right.
And as we all know...or should know...the Constitution limits the
government’s power by dividing the government into three separate
branches...the legislative branch which makes the law; the executive
branch which enforces the law, and the judicial branch which interprets
the law. But most importantly, the Constitution, along with Supreme
Court rulings, limits the power of the federal government by its
deliberate delegation of certain key powers to the individual states,
meaning each state is given the right and the ability to make most of its own laws and
set most of its own policy...as it should be.
In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws affecting the social
issues regarding what's called 'family relations' (marriage, divorce,
and adoption), commerce occurring within a state’s borders, and local
law enforcement activities, are among those specifically delegated
powers given to the states or to the people via the ballot box...the
individual state's ballot box that is.
Yet the so-called 'socially-conscious' ubber-religious far right...the
very ones who scream they adhere to the Constitution but actually do
not... sadly ignore that issues of marriage...traditional or otherwise...legally belong to the states. Too busy making wedding cakes and pizza
parlors ground zero for their hate...hate based solely upon words they
claim are in the Bible..these people refuse to accept the fact that many
mistakes were made in the translating of the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic
texts into the more modern texts (
https://www.facebook.com/notes/james-dav... or read the complete unabridged version at
https://www.facebook.com/notes/james-dav...).
Saying that since government did not create marriage...that God alone
created marriage...they then argue why should government have a right to
define marriage.
And they are right up to a point, however, these same
people forget that it works both ways...both ways as in why then should
they be allowed to demand that the government define marriage as to
their beliefs, in this case being strictly between one man and one
women. These are the very people...the very vocal people...who want
government completely out of their religion yet they have no problem
whatsoever in inserting their religion into government...in fact they
relish in it.
Also, what these people refuse to accept is that the entire concept of
same-sex marriage is simply based upon legalities as per the
Constitution not on religion. And the fact is that the Constitution does
not forbid same-sex marriage nor does it condone same-sex marriage as
the Constitution does not mention marriage at all nor does the
Constitution address what we call issues of 'morality' more commonly known as the social
issues. Therefore, logic would dictate that the federal
government..that the Supreme Court...should not be adjudicating any
decisions whatsoever on the issue of same-sex marriage...that this is an issue that must go back
to the individual states to decide even though each state has its own
individual requirements concerning people who marry. In fact, after
the 'Defense of Marriage Act' became law in 1996, Justice Anthony
Kennedy wrote that,
“By history and tradition the definition and
regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority
and realm of the separate States.”
But, unfortunately, thanks to some it seems not to work that way no matter
that Thomas Jefferson's basic founding principal of 'separation of
church and state' is now colliding with the mindset of the ubber-religious
far right who place the religious words of the Bible above the secular
rule of law that is the Constitution. And these people forget that while
most Americans take marriage to both legally and religiously mean the union of
one man and one woman, the fact is that no actual legal definition of
the word 'marriage' itself is to be found in any of our founding documents nor
is it specifically addressed by any statute. And that is the crux of the
ongoing battle currently facing the Supreme Court and very well may be
the determining factor in how they rule next month on same-sex marriage.
The issue of same-sex marriage is not new as it has been an ongoing
battle of the ubber-religious far right vs. the liberal left ever since a 1993
decision in Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 74 Haw. 530. In tackling the
possibility of same-sex marriage in Hawaii, the court decided that the
state law restricting legal marriage to individuals of the opposite sex
established a sex-based classification, which then would became subject to
constitutional scrutiny when challenged on equal protection grounds. And
though the court did not recognize a constitutional right to same-sex
marriage, it did suggest that the state would have a difficult time
proving that same-sex couples were not being denied equal protection
under the law.
Jumping ahead to 2000, Vermont became the first state to 'legalize'
same-sex civil unions...what many refer to as domestic partnerships. In
their trying to afford committed same-sex couples some of the legal
protections given straight spouses without actually calling it marriage,
Vermont took a giant step towards adhering to these all-important
words,
“All men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with
certain unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness”...words laid down in our Declaration of Independence...words
that translate into meaning that equal protection under the law is just
that...equal for everyone for nowhere in any of our founding documents
does it say equal for everyone except gay people.
And legal protections and economic benefits is truly what same-sex
marriage is all about...as in the 1400 legal rights afforded to
so-called 'traditional' married couples...with the ceremony and marriage
certificate being but nice icing on the same-sex wedding cake. Legal
protections and economic benefits that cannot be privately arranged or
contracted for within the legal system...protections and benefits that
include all-important tax benefits (the ability to file joint tax
returns, etc.); estate planning benefits (involving inheritances, estate
and gift taxes, and medical decisions); government benefits (including
social security, Medicare, disability, veterans' benefits, and public
assistance if need be); employment benefits (receiving insurance through
a spouse's employer, deceased and bereavement benefits); medical
benefits (hospital visitation rights and medical decision rights); death
benefits; family benefits (concerning adoption and divorce); housing
and consumer benefits; and other legal benefits dealing with wrongful
death, confidential communications, crime victim's recovery benefits,
and others.
Now, note that not one of these protections and benefits that
legally should, in our opinion, be afforded to committed same-sex
couples has anything to do with religious aspects or rites nor do these protections and rights
in any way infringe upon the same protections and rights of those who adhere strictly to the
Biblical beliefs as to what constitutes a marriage.
And as it stands now even before the upcoming June decision, if a
'married' same-sex couple currently resides in a state that recognizes
same-sex marriage...and 26 states already do by court decision, 8 by
state legislature, and 3 by popular vote...that couple is entitled to
federal benefits under the recent U.S. Supreme Court case, U.S. v.
Windsor, with the sole caveat being that certain rules for eligibility
will vary by federal agency. And with many agencies looking to the place
where the marriage was performed to determine whether same-sex married
couples are eligible for said benefits, you can see that same-sex
marriage is to some degree already being adjudicated at the state level
as per the Constitution.
So when one looks at same-sex marriage as strictly an issue concerning
legal rights and NOT an issue concerning or infringing upon religious rites...when one sees
same-sex marriage as just another government sanctioned contract of
sorts... the legal vs. the Biblical concept of marriage can then clearly
be seen as two completely different and separate issues which in turn brings us
back full circle to the all-important premise that if you want government out of your
religion then you need to keep your religion and your religious beliefs out of government.
Tomorrow, in Part 2 of our series
'God v.The Constitution' the religious angle against same-sex
marriage will be discussed and we will point out why the ubber-religious
far right is so wrong in their opposition of same-sex marriage.
