Gay Marriage is a Constitutional Right?

WHY THE SUPREME COURT'S NON-DECISION SHOULD UPSET AMERICANS

By Teri O'Brien -

There is a real reason to be extremely upset about the Supreme Court's underhanded and disgusting ruling of October 6, 2014, which allows rogue, activist, results-oriented federal judges in lower courts to run roughshod over the rights of the American public by declaring that there is a federal Constitutional right to so-called "same sex marriage," which of course, is a ridiculous contradiction in terms to anyone with a passing knowledge of the English language.

No, it's not that we must endure cringe-inducing B-roll of pairs of 300-pound females, some of whom bear a striking resemblance to Chaz Bono, holding the hands of their "brides" resplendent in their strapless white wedding dresses. (Who knew those dresses came in size Orca?) Nor is it the obligatory footage of two males French-kissing after they are pronounced "husband" and "husband."

Those things are bad enough, but the real reason to be upset has nothing to do with that. Nor does it matter whether a person opposes so-called same sex marriage, supports it, or isn't sure. Every single American should be extremely concerned about these court decisions because they demonstrate an utter contempt for the rule of law from the very branch of government that should be most concerned about it. 

Where precisely in the U.S. Constitution is this "right" for two men or two women to marry found? It's hard to say exactly. Let me cut to the chase: IT ISN'T IN THERE, unless we resort to the sort of results-oriented reading of the Constitution that gave us emanating "penumbras" where liberals suddenly discover "rights" unimagined by the Founders.

In the current flurry of activity to nationalize the issue of marriage, some of the courts seem to rely on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, while others appear to look to the Due Process Clause of that same Amendment. It's not unlike what happened in the Supreme Court case that arguably kicked off all of this Gay-a-palooza madness in the federal courts, or at least accelerated it, Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

In that case, the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy relied on that reliable tool of activist justices from the Dred Scott case through Roe v. Wade through this Lawrence disaster, substantive due process. Justice O'Connor, who also agreed with the outcome in the case chose instead to rely on the Equal Protection Clause. I love it when activist judges bend over backwards to pretend that there is a Constitutional basis for the result they desire, don't you? 

As I have previously pointed out, Lawrence v. Texas was actually a fraud on the Supreme Court, a result of manipulation by militant homosexual activists, enraged by a 1986 Supreme Court decision, Bowers v. Hardwick, that said the state of Georgia was perfectly within its rights to criminalize sodomy between two men. These groups cooked up the whole set of facts. To quote a book review of "Flagrant Conduct," book that exposed the truth about this case: 

[T]he case that affirmed the right of gay couples to have consensual sex in private spaces seems to have involved two men who were neither a couple nor having sex. In order to appeal to the conservative Justices on the high court, the story of a booze-soaked quarrel was repackaged as a love story. Nobody had to know that the gay-rights case of the century was actually about three or four men getting drunk in front of a television in a Harris County apartment decorated with bad James Dean erotica. 

Here's the real kicker: the Supreme Court has already ruled on the Constitutionality of so-called same sex marriage and the right of states to prohibit it. It did so back in 1972, in Baker v. Nelson, a case from Minnesota, in which two men were denied a marriage license in Hennepin County (Minneapolis). The Supreme Court.

The Minnesota Supreme Court, in an opinon that seemed to just barely avoid saying "You cannot be serious," said that the Constitution does not provide any "fundamental right" for two guys to get married. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that decision with an order consisting of the phrase "“Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.” End of story. 

In a despicable act of gutless capitulation to efforts to Constitutionalize the Left's agenda, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to overrule Baker, and instead chooses to allow lower court judges to violate the rights of states, which have throughout the history of this country had the authority to define marriage, and trample on the desires of the vast majority of American citizens.

I will repeat: even if you are a supporter of so-called same sex marriage, you should be extremely concerned about living in a post-Constitutional time, with a lawless occupant of the Oval Office gleefully wielding his pen and phone to do whatever he pleases, and courts apparently willing to do whatever it takes to get the result they think is "fair." When legal matters are decided by that standard, rather than by legal procedure and rules applied without regard to outcome, we have tyranny in black robes, the rule of man, not the rule of law. We need only look to history to see where that leads.