Editor's note: Here at The Humble Libertarian, we are dedicated to getting the state out of our bedrooms by getting it out of the marriage issue altogether. Our mantras are de-legalize straight marriage, privatize marriage, and stop using the tax code or any other government policy to penalize people on the basis of sexual orientation.We agree however, with Buchanan's assessment below, that finding anything about marriage in the U.S. Constitution requires a tortured reading thereof, which is why a federal judge recently- and rightly- struck down the Defense of Marriage Act on the basis of the 10th Amendment. Constitutionally, marriage is an issue for the states, not Washington. And morally, marriage is an issue for individuals, not the states.
-------------
"Federal Judge Vaughn Walker is truly a visionary.
"Peering at the 14th Amendment, Walker found something there the authors of the amendment never knew they put there, and even the Warren Court never found there: The states of the Union must recognize same-sex marriages as equal to traditional marriage.
"Walker says the only motivations behind Proposition 8 had been 'biases' and 'moral disapproval,' and 'moral disapproval … has never been a rational basis for legislation.'
"But what else is the basis for laws against polygamy and incest? What else was the basis for the Mann Act, which prevented a man from taking his girlfriend across the state line to a motel?
"Undeniably, homosexuals have the same constitutional rights of free speech, peaceable assembly and trial by jury. But what the judge has done is declare the life choices and lifestyles of gay and lesbians to be equal to the life choice of married men and women.
"This is nothing but Walker’s personal opinion.
"But he is declaring it to be the only rational conclusion that can be reached. And having reached it, he has seized upon a phrase in the 14th amendment, 'equal protection,' distorted its meaning and dictated that this means his view and his values henceforth are the law in California, the voters be damned."
"Peering at the 14th Amendment, Walker found something there the authors of the amendment never knew they put there, and even the Warren Court never found there: The states of the Union must recognize same-sex marriages as equal to traditional marriage.
"Walker says the only motivations behind Proposition 8 had been 'biases' and 'moral disapproval,' and 'moral disapproval … has never been a rational basis for legislation.'
"But what else is the basis for laws against polygamy and incest? What else was the basis for the Mann Act, which prevented a man from taking his girlfriend across the state line to a motel?
"Undeniably, homosexuals have the same constitutional rights of free speech, peaceable assembly and trial by jury. But what the judge has done is declare the life choices and lifestyles of gay and lesbians to be equal to the life choice of married men and women.
"This is nothing but Walker’s personal opinion.
"But he is declaring it to be the only rational conclusion that can be reached. And having reached it, he has seized upon a phrase in the 14th amendment, 'equal protection,' distorted its meaning and dictated that this means his view and his values henceforth are the law in California, the voters be damned."
Read the rest of this article at The American Conservative.
Posted by Carl Wicklander,
Regular Columnist, THL
Articles | Author's Page | Website
