Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) gave an eloquent case why the Supreme erred when it declared parts of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Listen to her argument. Here are the key points:
The Supreme Court attacked the constitution, the equal rights protection guaranteed by the constitution, and they attacked marriage over which they have no jurisdiction. She states that they violated the equal rights of every American by throwing out DOMA because it was passed by the elected representatives of every American. She further states that they violated the equal rights of California's citizens who voted to define marriage as between man and woman. She believes that marriage is the basic foundation of our society and that God created it.
Regardless of your opinion of Rep. Bachmann, her argument has merits. Does the Court have the right to overturn a vote of the people? Do they have the right to overturn a law passed by Congress? Do they have the right to overturn a state law or a local law?
Our history is filled with examples of The Supreme Court declaring something unconstitutional based on laws passed by a state or a local government and yes even by Congress. For example, the courts declared Brown v. Board of Education as violation of equal rights. In doing so, they even declared something a former Supreme Court had ruled earlier. The system of checks and balances in our government is designed to prevent any branch of government from an action that violates the constitution.
Here is the problem: Whose interpretation of the Constitution is correct? Can a decision today be overturned by an action of Congress? Yes, it can! Can a decision by the court overturn a decision made by a previous Supreme Court. Interpretation is determined by a vote of nine people nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They are charged with deciding if an action or law violates the rights granted in the constitution. Interpretations are not concrete or absolutes. However, the court is usually considered the final voice.
The Court did not declare all of DOMA as unconstitutional. The Court agreed with Rep Bachmann. The Federal Government (all three branches) does not have the authority to define marriage. It is not a duty assigned to the Federal Government in the Constitution. Therefore, it is a right of each state to determine what marriage is. The Court did say that same sex couples who marry in states where same sex marriage is legalized has the right to enjoy the same rights and privileges as opposite sex married couples. This includes Federal benefits like joint filing of taxes.
If we followed Representative Bachmann's logic, the court would have violated the equal rights of people in Washington State and Maryland who legalized same sex marriage by a vote of the people. In addition, the court would be violating the rights of those in the 10 other states whose duly elected state representatives voted to legalized marriage. California is an exception since a vote of the people was taken after the state legislature approved it.
This raises a bigger question. Is Representative Bachmann correct in saying that marriage was created by God and that it is basic foundation of our society. This is based on views of being a religious person or in her case Christian. The creation story of Genesis states that a man and woman shall leave their parents and become one flesh. Yet, even this is open to interpretation.
The Old Testament view of marriage is not about love at all. It is more about producing children. Men were allowed to have as many wives as they could support. King Solomon had 1000 wives and 300 women whom he did not marry. Marriages were arranged to create alliances or obtain money. Marriage did not become a sacrament of the church until the 12th century. Government took over marriage in 18th England. The Victorians introduced the concept of love in marriage.
The concept of marriage as we have it today is new in human history. Looking at the current status of marriage, one wonders what the fuss is all about. There doesn't seem to be anything sacred about it. Family life is being destroyed not by same sex marriage at all. It is being attacked through the actions and attitudes of those who believe it is sacred and the foundation of society. I say this because divorce is common, cohabitation before marriage is popular, and sex is openly discussed and seen in videos, tv shows, and movies. There was a time when having a child out of wedlock was considered immoral and the mother and child often ostracized. Divorce was not popular. I agree with Representative Bachmann that marriage should be the foundation of society, for family is the basic unit of human existence. We need to learn how to become better at being a family. We will when we understand the commandment to love others as we love ourselves. Yes, Representative Bachmann I agree marriage is sacred but marriage without love and respect seems to be the destroyer of marriage not same sex marriage.
No comments:
Post a Comment