"Rescuing the Constitution, the Courts, and Marriage"
By Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D., National Chairman
This week the U. S. Senate is scheduled to debate an issue that would have been unthinkable to our constitutional Framers the Marriage Protection Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. The measure states that:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
The Amendment was introduced by Sen. Allard (R-CO) and is designated as "S.J.RES.1." Protecting marriage is necessary because of one paramount enemy the courts of the land, whose anti-marriage, pro-homosexual decisions have accelerated in number and intensity in recent years. Twice in American history has the Constitution been amended to overturn U. S. Supreme Court decisions. The Eleventh Amendment prohibited suits against the states in national courts after controversial litigation had allowed such suits. The Sixteenth Amendment legalized the income tax after a Court decision threw out the tax. Clearly, neither of these provisions even approaches the fundamental societal significance of today's MPA debate.
Today's debate has been brought to a head by two court decisions: the U. S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision throwing out the Texas sodomy law (Lawrence v. Texas) and the 2003 decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's order that Massachusetts legalize homosexual marriage (Goodridge and Others v. Department of Public Health and Another). The fatal flaws of these two judicial disasters are myriad. They include the following:
- Lawrence should never have gone to court because the factual record was so sparse. The record before the Court failed to prove that the two plaintiffs had actually engaged in private, consensual sodomy, yet it was the "constitutional right" to engage in such behavior that the Court pulled out of some invisible moral swamp. Granting standing to sue under such circumstances indicates how desperately Reconstructionist judges are to radically morph our Constitution and culture.
- Neither the U. S. nor the Massachusetts Supremes paid any attention to the states' constitutionally-protected obligation to protect and promote the public health and safety from the dangers of homosexual conduct. Friend of the court briefs filed with the U. S. Supremes in Lawrence provided extensive evidence that homosexual conduct is strongly associated with vile diseases such as AIDS, hepatitis B, syphilis, and a group of intestinal tract diseases known as "gay bowel syndrome."
- Both the U. S. and Massachusetts Supreme Courts scorned the states' power/obligation to protect the public morality. Law and morality cannot be separated. As a Kentucky Supreme Court Justice declared in a 1993 homosexual rights state case, "legislation is always based on someone's morality. . . . The claim that we cannot legislate morality is a deception . . . ." The Supremes in 2003 were simply substituting Humanistic morality for Judeo-Christian morality in their decisions.
- Both high courts were also blind and deaf to the state governments' power/obligation to protect the public welfare. This "welfare power" encompasses the inevitable educative function of law. Several state attorneys-general argued before the U. S. Supremes in Lawrence that "Even legislation that is largely symbolic and infrequently enforced (due to other salutary checks on government power, like the Fourth Amendment) has significant pedagogical value. Laws teach people what they should and should not do . . . ." Reconstructionist judges are not interpreting the Constitution they are using it as an educational weapon to establish the legitimacy of homosexual conduct in American culture.
- Neither Supreme Court allowed the governments of their respective jurisdiction to outlaw a smorgasbord of moral evils. Governments which legitimize homosexual marriage and other conduct will find it virtually impossible to outlaw other homosexual "rights" (employment benefits, adoption, etc.) and other evils opposed by Western Christendom bestiality, incest, sibling intermarriage, prostitution, drug use, etc.
- The Lawrence Court exploded a seismic shift in the grounds for courts' decisions. It gave unprecedented weight to international and foreign law, virtually dismissed consideration of American law except for the last fifty years of our legal history, and reduced regulation of homosexual conduct to one and only one possible motive: hatred for homosexuals. Such blatant violation of centuries of Anglo-American decision-making standards severely insults and undermines the Constitution, both procedurally and substantively.
- Both courts flagrantly misconstrued the nature of marriage, though the Massachusetts Supremes were bolder in their misconstruction. These state Reconstructionists defined marriage as "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others," as an "evolving paradigm," and as "a wholly secular institution" created by government.
The real nature of these pro-homosexual judicial decisions is well described by the U. S. Supreme Court's wordmeister, Justice Antonin Scalia, who attributes his colleagues' action to "a law-profession culture that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda. . . ." Furthermore, "the Court has taken sides in the culture war" and is "seemingly unaware that the attitudes of [the law profession] culture are not obviously 'mainstream.. . .'" Mainstream American Constitutionalists who do understand the truth declared by Scalia must act effectively and efficiently to protect the Judeo-Christian institution of marriage.