Weird Comments

I’ve been getting messages from some guys who have apparently mistaken me for a friend of mine; they’ve been taking issue with my stance on the court’s decision on gay marriage, and while I appreciate their concerns, I think they’ve got the wrong end of the stick here.

The point is that the Constitution only does provide what our idiot President once called “negative” rights, promises that the government will not interfere with us, which is what makes our Constitution unique and enduring. When you start promising “positive” rights, you open the door to an endless demands for all sorts of things.

If the U.S. government or the states moved in to try to stop religious services from marrying two guys or two gals or whatever, they might have an argument (but then again, see what Utah had to go to to achieve statehood). As it is, the Constitution does not deal with issues of marriage, so by the rule of the Tenth Amendment it must leave that up to the states. Antimiscegenation laws opened the door for the courts to apply the Fourteenth Amendment to the topic of marriage, but the decision in Loving v. Virginia was only applicable to race. That decision is not applicable here. Another court may do the same for same-sex marriage, but that’s a different argument.

Again, though, if marriage is defined as being any two people who want to be married, what’s to stop it from being any three, or four, or however many want to be married? No one has an answer for that beyond, well, it just won’t be. Uh-huh.

(P.S.: I’ll tell M. you said hello.)

Advertisement