Answer: Absolutely nothing. Whether you’re straight or gay, marriage is not defined in the Constitution. So why then are people on both sides of this issue either celebrating the DOMA decision by the Supreme Court, or dismayed by it? Is the issue here marriage, gay or otherwise? Or is the real issue being ignored by almost every pundit, news organization, or politician? And if marriage is not defined by our Constitution, then where is it, and has it been defined for almost all of human history? Well, the answer to that is in our religious institutions, and by the will of the majority of society.
In the past few days there seems to be virtually no trace of alarm in the media over an out of control judicial system that is making a power grab unprecedented in history. Alarmingly, with extremely few exceptions (thank you, Mark Levin Show) Liberal and so-called “Conservative” pundits alike are either jubilant or dismayed at the decision, and basing that jubilance or dismay mostly on their individual position on same sex marriage.
No one is even discussing the original purpose of DOMA, but they are in an uproar over its demise. The original purpose of DOMA, as defined by President Bill Clinton himself as he signed the bill, was to set FEDERAL policy on benefits to same sex couples. Both Clinton and Congress could see the gathering storm of a few states passing gay marriage laws and forcing their varying laws defining marriage on other neighboring states via a back door lawsuit at the Federal level. The message here was that the States should sort this out among themselves and this was, according to Clinton at the time, a States issue. He was correct, Constitutionally. Benefits and status to same sex couples granted (as they should be) to the individual states. DOMA was a compromise, and at the time gay activists and their supporters in Congress vowed to never try to overturn it, which is exactly what they proceeded to do immediately after it was signed. Congress could have amended DOMA on the Federal level to address civil unions without ever touching the topic of marriage, but they didn’t. Of course, Clinton has since claimed his own “awakening” to the gay marriage issue and announced his support for the repeal of DOMA, a virtual necessity in clearing the way for a run at the Presidency by his wife in 2016. We can’t let the Constitution get in the way of THAT, now can we?
So now, we have the Federal government meddling yet once again into the private lives of citizens and usurping the power of the States as granted to them in the founding documents. When California voters passed Proposition 8 as a Constitutional Amendment to their State Constitution, that should have been the end of the matter in California. After all, California already had in place a law recognizing same sex civil unions. This amendment was intended by the majority of the people of California to define marriage itself as specifically between one man and one woman. Individual State and our Federal Constitutions are by design not to be revoked or changed by some political whim or expediency in the future without a vote of the people. But Democrat governor Jerry Brown and his Attorney General, in blatant disregard of their sworn oaths of office, refused to defend that Constitutional amendment passed by the people when it was challenged in court by Liberal activists. Nonetheless, an Appeals Court upheld the will of the people in Proposition 8, even though no one from the State was there to defend it. Neither Brown nor his AG showed in court. Then, when a ruling by openly gay United States District Judge Vaughn Walker declared the amendment to be unconstitutional, Proposition 8 was put on the fast track to the Supreme Court, which should have rightfully set aside that ruling and sent it back to the State of California. That was not to be, as 5 activist lawyers on the Supreme Court decided to ignore the vote and the will of the people. They decided to set social policy based on their own human fallibility and opinions rather than addressing outrageous legal detours that had brought the matter before them in the first place. What the SCOTUS did, in effect…..are you ready for this?.....was to say that the people of California had no standing in the case because no one had been there to defend them in Walker's court before this judge with an obvious personal agenda when he ruled it unconstitutional. A travesty of justice is what comes to mind here, but travesty doesn't even begin to fit the bill. So now, the people of California are going to have gay marriage whether they like it or not, thank you, imposed on them by a court of 5 lawyers. Lawyers who are people just like you and me, fallible, imperfect human beings, equipped with their own set of character flaws, weaknesses, opinions, and prejudices just like the guy or gal down the street. Exactly what our Constitution specifically set out to prohibit.
So this is, and has been, the modus operandi of the Left and Liberal activists. If you lose at the ballot box, instead of working to change what you don’t like, you go out and find a sympathetic judge or judges to rule in your favor, regardless of existing law. And if they don’t, then appeal to a higher court until you get your way. Forget what the people actually want. Impose your will, values, morals and preferences on them, make them live with it, and make them like it. The problem is…..we don’t like it. The real issue here is not whether you agree with same sex marriage. The real issue is the process, and the complete repudiation of the will of the people in each state as defined by our Constitution to pass, debate, overturn, revise, rewrite or otherwise manage their own affairs outside of those specifically defined by that Constitution without fear of undue interference from an out of control panel of lawyers in Washington. Lawyers who may or may not have anything at all in common with the 300 million majority of us, yet whose decision will in perpetuity control how we and our children will live our lives. The overjoyed supporters of the DOMA ruling may someday find themselves on the losing side of a ruling that they will decry as racist, bigoted, unfair and perhaps even unconstitutional. But that’s how it goes when you hand over such power to out of bounds courts and imperfect judges.
Have we become, as Levin stated on his show, a nation of people gathering around the TV each and every June to hang on every word and decision by that panel majority of 5 lawyers in Washington, hoping that they, in their imperfect human wisdom will decide for the rest of us what may become the next loss of our Liberty and freedom of choice to live our own lives, just because they have seized the precedent and power to do so? Decisions for all 300 million of us? That is certainly how it is beginning to look.