Call the Sean Hannity Show:

800.941.7326  3-6 pm ET Mon-Fri

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

ARTICLES

Gay Marriage Debate Continues

We are in day two of the heated debate over same sex marriage as the Supreme Court heard arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act today, after yesterday's Proposition 8 argument.

It wasn't that long ago when our own Commander-in-Chief “evolved” on the issue of gay marriage. He was for it, then he was undecided, then he was against it and now he's for it again. His “evolution” happened less than a year ago, and now more politicians like Hillary Clinton have similarly come out of the closet in support of gay marriage. Yet if you listen to the lapdog Obama-mania media report on the issue before the Supreme Court, they are labeling those who support traditional marriage as “on the wrong side of history” and “archaic.” It wasn't that long ago when their Anointed One supported this “archaic” belief in marriage being between a man and a woman. Either way, the Obama administration is thrilled to have the issue currently in the spotlight. After months of Obama's poll numbers dropping, particularly on the economy, the White House is expecting political gains from this rejuvenated focus on gay marriage, an issue on which Obama now stands with the majority.

When it comes to the Supreme Court, we know better than to try and predict the Court's ruling based on the questions posed by the Justices, but yesterday they seemed skeptical - not about the issue of gay marriage itself - but on the Supreme Court's role in ruling on the matter. Justice Alito pointed out that they were being asked to rule on an institution that is “newer than cell phones or the Internet.” Justice Kennedy called the issue “uncharted waters,” asking if the case is properly granted. Justice Sotomayor asked, “Why is taking a case now the answer?” Could it be that those of the left will not get the definitive ruling on gay marriage that they are hoping for?

Some people have compared this battle to that of the abortion issue. But even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said the Supreme Court ruling on abortion in Roe v. Wade went too far in forcing a consensus on all Americans, many of which still oppose abortion. This is why I would be surprised if the Court did, in fact, make a blanket ruling on the issue of gay marriage for all Americans. To do so, in my view, would disrupt the democratic process. It would create a permanent culture war, as the Roe v. Wade decision has done for the issue of abortion.

Instead, I think they are going to look for an out. They will punt on the issue, saying that they don't have standing. The issue will be sent back to the states, allowing each state and its citizens find its proper footing on the issue. While that may seem like defeat to some supporters of gay marriage, others have pointed out that it's really not. The fact is that the overall shift in support for gay marriage will make it far more likely for more states to pass laws making it legal.

That leads to today's arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act. Some of today's initial questioning over DOMA seemed to surround the Obama administration's role in not defending the law and instead seemingly pawning off its constitutionality for the Supreme Court to decide. Again, the Justices also seemed focus on whether or not the definition of marriage is even a federal issue, or if it should be left to the states.

At the end of the day, there is simply no constitutional right for gays to marry. It doesn't mean that gay marriage might not eventually happen, but it just means that the left is seeking to invent a new Constitutional right, which they believe they can do because of their view of the Constitution as a living, breathing document. I think that this is a dangerous approach because it separates Constitutional decisions from the Constitution itself. It was actually Justice Sotomayor who brought up the point of a decision on gay marriage being a slippery slope. This is not to say that those who support gay marriage support polygamy, but the same argument could be used to support other forms of marriage such as polygamy, which has historically been far more common than gay marriage. Constitutionally if we open the door, where do we then draw the line and what justification do we have for drawing certain lines but not others?

Something we have to keep in mind is that while there is a lot of fervor over this issue right now, this is not a priority for the American people. That's not to belittle those who feel passionately about the issue, but Americans overall are not concerned about gay marriage as much as they are about the economy, jobs and the debt.







ADVERTISEMENT

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

ADVERTISEMENT