Looks like Gay Marriage will be back in the Supreme Court again. I was listening to a commentator discussing the up coming decision and it was clear that he was bias toward liberalizing Gay Marriage. I think that you know that I do not come to this question from any religious basis so I just may have a more objective view of the subject than most..
First, let's look at the constitution. Back in the 1700's when my Scottish relatives won our Independence from England, they first formed independent states. Because these individual states were so small compared to England, they felt they needed to join together for mutual protection. There was no other reason for them to join together, just protection. To assure that this new organization did not end up like England with a King at the federal level running every thing, they made a "constitution" that "limited" the power of the federal government. The key word here is "limited". Now how does this affect the business of Gay Marriage?
100% of the people who liberated this country from England knew what the meaning of marriage was. They knew that society needed a system to assure that children were taken care of and that children were "not" born out of wedlock. Since 100% of us agreed on the reason for marriage and its value to society that we "rewarded" it with special "benefits". These were not "rights", they were "benefits". There is a whole list of "benefits" that married people get from society by mutual agreement. I am not going to list all those "benefits" down here, but you know what they are.
When the courts look at this, they need to focus on just two things. First, the constitution sets down all the areas where the federal government has jurisdiction and clearly states that, "if it is not stated in the constitution that the federal government has the power, then it does not." Further, "...any power not clearly defined in the constitution is left to the individual states." Could it be any clearer that the Supreme court has "no" jurisdiction in this subject. It is 100% up to the states.
The second point, who changed the definition of "benefit" to "right"? Normal married couples were "given" special "benefits" and we all agreed that this was a good idea for society. Now people who want to have a "relationship" with another person of the same sex, feel that they have a "right" to the same "benefits" that society "gave" to married couples. I see no reason that people of the same sex should be prevented from having a relationship, but that does not extend to society "giving" them the same "benefits". These "benefits" are clearly not "rights". We have to correct the Gay community when they try to frame the discussion as "rights" vs "benefits". Further, we need to point out that their main objective is simple "greed". They want to get something that they do not deserve. It is society who gave the benefits and the courts have no role in changing the definition of what is a "benefit" that can be taken away rather than a "right" that can not be taken away.
PS----Why are Gays so greedy? Do they understand that what they are doing is asking the police to come to my home and take my property and give it to them? What the Supreme court is deciding is if it is worth sending the police to my door with guns to take my property and give it to Gays who want to hump each other. This is not about "rights", it is about "greed" and total disrespect for me and what I have worked for. It is really just that simple. Before the courts send the police to your home to take your property, I think they need a lot better reason than two Gays who are in love!!!
