The constitution doesn't ban gay marriage
Jake Flaherty
Issue date: 10/8/09 Section: Opinion
In today's world we cannot escape the issue. The issue of homosexuality and marriage has spread across the country permeating federal and state legislatures alike. As conservatives with mostly Judeo-Christian backgrounds, we at Hillsdale are, for the most part, morally repulsed by the idea of homosexual marriage. Before adopting this mentality wholesale, though, let's take an unbiased look at the issue at hand, and at the political underpinnings that really make us "conservative."
The issue at hand quickly gets over complicated in the midst of heavy and often personal political debate, leading us to miss the actual question at hand: "Should a state government issue a license to wed to homosexual as well as heterosexual couples." The key word to examine in that phrase is "government." You see, unlike some would like you to believe, the government is not forcing the Roman Catholic Church or any other religious institution to taint their age old pact between man, woman and, God of life and procreation. But they are rather allowing more people to participate in a completely different function controlled solely by the government, which happens to have the same name-civil marriage. To find the truth in this debate, we must understand that those in favor of homosexual marriage licenses are referring only to the state and in no way to any religious institution.
Now that we understand the issue, let's try to understand ourselves. What does it mean to be conservative? I find it right in the principles which I know Hillsdale College to defend: The protection of the Constitution, and the defense of individual human liberty and freedom. With that in mind, why should we not support gay marriage? We've already concluded that it's not religious in nature; so we have no measure of faith to protect. In keeping with the 14th Amendment any contract offered to one citizen should be offered to another. Just as the Constitution is genderless, our conservative interpretation should be similarly devoid of artificial divisions.
To round off my analysis, I am personally opposed to gay marriage. I was born and raised a Catholic, and was taught that the only union endorsed by the Lord is one between a man and his female wife. That being said, as a conservative knowledgeable of our Constitution, I understand that no government body has the right to create a contract exclusive to one group of people and that group alone. So our choice is simple, either allow for gay marriage, or leave it where it belongs; solely in the hands of the Church.
The issue at hand quickly gets over complicated in the midst of heavy and often personal political debate, leading us to miss the actual question at hand: "Should a state government issue a license to wed to homosexual as well as heterosexual couples." The key word to examine in that phrase is "government." You see, unlike some would like you to believe, the government is not forcing the Roman Catholic Church or any other religious institution to taint their age old pact between man, woman and, God of life and procreation. But they are rather allowing more people to participate in a completely different function controlled solely by the government, which happens to have the same name-civil marriage. To find the truth in this debate, we must understand that those in favor of homosexual marriage licenses are referring only to the state and in no way to any religious institution.
Now that we understand the issue, let's try to understand ourselves. What does it mean to be conservative? I find it right in the principles which I know Hillsdale College to defend: The protection of the Constitution, and the defense of individual human liberty and freedom. With that in mind, why should we not support gay marriage? We've already concluded that it's not religious in nature; so we have no measure of faith to protect. In keeping with the 14th Amendment any contract offered to one citizen should be offered to another. Just as the Constitution is genderless, our conservative interpretation should be similarly devoid of artificial divisions.
To round off my analysis, I am personally opposed to gay marriage. I was born and raised a Catholic, and was taught that the only union endorsed by the Lord is one between a man and his female wife. That being said, as a conservative knowledgeable of our Constitution, I understand that no government body has the right to create a contract exclusive to one group of people and that group alone. So our choice is simple, either allow for gay marriage, or leave it where it belongs; solely in the hands of the Church.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Try the 10th Amendment
posted 10/08/09 @ 8:31 PM EST
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that equal protection (or privileges and immunities, I'm really not sure which part of the 14th Amendment you're referring to) applies to anything outside of marriage as it was conceived at the time of the American founding, how can a Catholic be so crass as to label heterosexual marriage / homosexual "marriage" an "artificial" division? Common law has long defined marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation since long before our Constitution. (Continued…)
Post a Comment