The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.It doesn't surprise me at all that a politician has absolutely no clue about the historical foundations of this country, let alone a conservative Republican. Such an amendment would be the antithesis to the philosophy of the founding fathers: the individual's ability to procure life and liberty with equal protection under the law. Of course, I doubt Romney or anyone involved in his campaign actually read the opinion. If they had, they would have been shown that (1) there was a failure to support the rationale between state interests and excluding same-sex couples from legally recognized marriage and (2) a moral perspective, even if supported by the voting majority, is not an appreciable justification.
The Constitution was constructed such that government mandated only social and civil duties; morality is explicitly left to the opinion of the individual. This individual's opinion is protected under the first amendment, but the first amendment also prevents the government from acting on mere opinion alone. There must be a rationality between the particulars of a certain mandate and the interests of the state. Laws against gay marriage go directly against this principle. An amendment goes directly against this principle.
The day American politics become subservient to sectarian ideologies is the day America loses sight of her very history and makes a mockery of the men and women who died in the service of protecting and maintaining our Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment