As we learned late yesterday, U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage, citing the laws unconstitutionality for its demise. With Shelby stating that his final verdict was justified because:
"The State's current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in doing so, demean the dignity of these same sex couples for no rational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional."
Yet, let's see if we can find out where in the constitution it says that, shall we?
The fact of the matter is that no where in the Constitution, unless you include the Left's magical, mystical, and not to mention all together mythical 'good and plenty clause' that no can seem to find and in which there seems to be every measure of support for the Left's ideology, is there anything that states in the Bill of Rights that we the people have the fundamental right to marriage. Nor does it say anywhere in the Constitution that demeaning another person, for as Judge Shelby put it, "no rational reason," makes a law unconstitutional. Furthermore, since when is not officially recognizing a person's sin as permissible demeaning them.
This lack of Constitutional support for Utah's anti-same-sex marriage law's unconstitutionality means one of two things, first that the founders always intended for marriage to have nothing to do with government at all, which is why I as a libertarian want the government out of everything to do with marriage, whether homosexual in nature or not; and secondly that the State has every right to address this issue through law as it sees fit. In fact, the final amendment in the Bill of Rights and the tenth amendment to the Constitution expressly states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people."
Thus, since the Utah law was passed under State referendum, while the U.S. District court ruling was passed by one activist leftist judge, whether this power of deciding the legality of homosexual marriage belongs to the State or to the people in this case does not matter; for neither circumstance makes the law unconstitutional, while at the same time both make the U.S. District Court Judge's ruling unconstitutional.
Yet, as troublesome as having a U.S. District Judge that makes up whatever he wishes the Constitution said, instead of following what it actually says, is. Equally troubling is the notion that Judge Shelby expressed that we are denying same-sex couples the right to marry "for no rational reason." When in a State like Utah, where the Mormon Church is king, the rational reason is obvious; because the people of Utah fear God and know Him to be real and thus also know that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible clearly states that it is and thus must never be abetted through the allowance of homosexual marriage.
Thus, this notion that following ones religious convictions is irrational, alters the state from a secular one into a atheistic one; a subtle but extremely dangerous shift. Since, while the founders understood that the church must be protected and kept separate from the oppression of the state so that it could act as a safeguard for the people's freedom. This new 21st century United States Federal Government seeks to protect the state from the truth of Christ as much as possible and thus naturally seeks to demean and oppress Christians whenever possible.
Yet, as oppressive as this case indicates the U.S. Federal Government is towards conservatives and people of faith in this nation, the significance of this case is even deeper. This is because if the U.S. Federal Government can act unconstitutionally when it comes to aiding and abetting the activist LGBT community, then this has very dangerous consequences around the nation. This is because if the U.S. Federal Government can act in this manner for the LGBT community, then what is to stop it from declaring state laws against abortion unconstitutional. In fact, what is to stop it from declaring whatever law, that it views as counter-productive to its own purposes, unconstitutional; whether declaring it as such supports the Left or the Right.
Moreover, when just last week on December 9th you had 23 states gather at Mount Vernon for an informal meeting to discuss the possibility of a Constitutional Convention, and when over 72% of the nation's people view big government as the largest threat to the United States itself; and you couple that with the U.S. Federal Government being able to go against the will of the people, not based on the law, but by fiat; you have the makings of a civil war brewing.
Since, not only are the people up in arms about the way that Washington is doing things, but there is now so much backlash in regards to the Federal Government interfering with and contradicting the will of the people and the sovereignty of each State that is afforded to each State by the Constitution; that the union is in serious peril. Since, when the States, each with their own military known as the National Guard, start openly and directly opposing the oppressive will of the Federal Government for the good of the people and because of the people; peaceful resistance can only last so long. Especially when one considers, not only how unhinged from the Constitution the U.S. Federal Government has become, but when you have a President who openly and actively seeks every means by which to enable both the government and himself to rule by authoritarian decree.
Thus, while everyone around the world, but especially those who live in North America, should be praying to God that a second United States civil war never comes to pass, the realities on the ground make it a possibility and thus we should be mindful of it and begin to contemplate more seriously, before the decision becomes extremely difficult, whose side we are on.
Creator & Founder