Before I start in on my intended subject of same-sex marriage, let's take a look at the history of marital laws in the United States of America and the Constitutionality of those laws as set forth by the courts. In order to do this we will need to take a look at the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since the laws with regards to marriage as passed by the Congress and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court dealt principally with the Mormon church.
In 1862, Congress passed the anti-polygamy law known as the Morrill Act. This was the first act of the national Republican party in trying to derail the Mormon church since they were created to rid society of the two pillars of social blight, slavery and Mormonism. This law forbade the practise of plural marriage or polygamy. It created strict penalties including prison terms for those who violated the law. The Church was to cease all practise of polygamy immediately. In 1875 members of the Church with the consent of the leaders of the church challenged the law in the Supreme Court. In 1879 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States in the case Reynolds v. United States, in a unanimous decision by the court, it ruled that the U.S. Congress had all right given under the Constitution to define marriage and make laws to enforce that definition by the governing body. As a side note, what I find interesting with this 9-0 decision in favor of the Morrill Act in 1879 is that in 2008 the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Constitution protected the individual right to keep and bare arms. I'll let you make your conclusions as to the motivation backing the premise behind these two decisions, and I'll continue with my original topic. With this new found backing by the court, the congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act with stiffer penalties if not adhered to immediately. The Church facing complete isolation and the prospect of loosing all property through seizure by the Federal Government moves to make the practise of polygamy illegal within the Church. Many men who refuse to leave their families are placed in prison and others flee to Mexico to live in peace with their wives and children. I could get into a discussion with regards to the Constitutional issues surrounding this ordeal, but I will leave it at that and continue on topic.
Now let's flash forward in time to today. There has been several attempts by some in congress to introduce an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The opposition to this amendment within the congress has stated that congress has no right to define marriage and that it is a state's right issue. In principle I believe this stance to be correct. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution as found in the Bill of Rights and ratified in 1791 states as follows: " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This means since the Constitution makes no mention of a definition of marriage or contrary to the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1879, the States and or the people make the decision on the definition of marriage. This being said, although I believe the ruling of the Court to be motivated by religious bigotry and intolerance, nonetheless they ruled that the Congress has the Constitutional authority to define marriage within the United States, and since we as a people cannot go against the ruling of the Supreme Court as witnessed in the case with Roe v. Wade the Congress has the authority for now to define marriage.
I therefore ask this question, why then has the Congress refused to act on this subject? I believe the answer is simple. As in many instances in recent decades our illustrious elected officials have repeatedly refused to take upon themselves the responsibility to govern in those tough issues and have sat idly by and allowed the Courts to legislate from the bench. I believe this is what they are attempting to do in this case with full knowledge as to how the Court will eventually rule. We see in Massachusetts once the people voted in favor of a Constitutional Amendment the Courts came back and said, that although the people spoke, they have no right to define marriage and same-sex marriage was legalized. In Connecticut this week, their High (and mighty) Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage thereby taking out of the hands of the people to define marriage for themselves. Next month in California Proposition 8 will attempt to define marriage in California as between one man and one woman. If the people come out in favor, will the Courts in California uphold the ruling? I believe we can safely assume that the answer to that will be, No. Since they have already ruled in favor of same-sex unions in California.
Twenty-seven states currently have Constitutional Amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. Forty-one states have statutory laws prohibiting same-sex unions but all are under judicial review. With political hot bed, our Congress has been unable to muster the 2/3 votes needed to pass the law. If nothing is done within Congress the Courts will determine the outcome of this battle between traditional and re-defined marriage.
What can we do? We can write our Congressmen and women and demand that action be taken to define marriage as between one man and one woman. We must hold our legislatures accountable to do their job and stop the Courts from legislating from the bench. Article III of the Constitution states that,"...the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and such Regulations as the Congress shall make." This means that Congress makes laws and the Court upholds them, not the other way around. It is time that our government understand the Constitution and stop trying to skirt the issues at hand.
Make no mistake about it, either the voice of the people will be heard, or the Courts will be heard on this issue. Then what will be next? Will homosexuality be taught to our children in schools as a normal choice and perfectly acceptable so that a 5-year old in kindergarten will grow up with their parents telling them one thing and their teachers and educators telling them something else? Will parental rights be completely stripped away with regards to this issue? I believe the answers to these questions will be in the affirmative. Then will those who practise bestiality, or necrophiles, or pedophiles be granted their rights under this new found Constitutional right? Where does it stop? It won't.
My call is to all Americans worthy of that appellation to stand up and make your voice heard. If we are to save the sacred institution of marriage then we must act. The future of our Country and our societies demands that we do something now. Stand up, and prepare for the battle ahead, because this is not a matter of just marriage, but a matter of National security. I feel strongly about this subject. We must act or be acted upon.
God Bless America! And may Freedom ring from the tops of every hill penetrating in every climb and may the flame of freedom burn brightly in the hearts of every American until we are able to say, We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America!
(Video on same-sex marriage)
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713
No comments:
Post a Comment