RECEIVE FREE UPDATES
    Search this Site!
    Dedicated to the return to the constitution as written by our forefathers, The return of common sense in our laws, the return of morality in our
    Decisions, and the proliferation of environmental truth.

    Gay Marriage, What Does Our Constitution Say?

    With all the talk about the pro’s and con’s about gay marriage I would like to open a discussion regarding what our Constitution says about it.

    Does the Constitution forbid gay marriage?

    No.

    Does the Constitution allow gay marriage?

    No.

    How can that be?

    The answer is actually very simple. As I tried to put forth in my book, “A Charter of Negative Liberties,” the Constitution does not mention marriage. In fact, the Constitution does not discuss any issues concerning morality.  The Constitution and therefore the federal government is not allowed to have an opinion on gay marriage and when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    As I wrote in my book:

    “The Constitution does not say it is against the law to rob a bank. The Constitution does not say it is against the law to murder your neighbor. The Constitution does not say it is against the law to sell or use drugs. It does not say anyone has to believe in God or be a Christian. It does not say anything about marriage, nor does the Bill of Rights.

     The Bill of Rights does not say these things because these are moral issues, and the Bill of Rights was not written to address moral issues. The Bill of Rights was written to address political freedom for the people and to set limits of power for a federal government. I cannot stress enough that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are political documents, not a moral ones.

     Moral issues are covered by an individual’s conscience and religion and by laws passed by local or state communities and can change as the moral culture changes, for better or for worse. What I mean is, from the federal government’s perspective, moral issues are not addressed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and ergo those issues are off limits to the federal government.

     Over time, as morality changes, it is the laws enacted by the people at the community, county, and state level that are intended to handle changes in moral values. If the people of California vote to approve or ban gay marriage, the Constitution does not give the federal government any authority to intervene for or against it. Marriage is not a political freedom issue. Likewise, the federal government has not been granted the power to impose itself upon any state policy regarding murder, robbery, drugs, or any other issue of moral law.

     Therefore it is given:

    The Bill of Rights was written to protect the states’ and the people’s political freedom from a federal government, and the Bill of Rights is not a moral values document.”

    Before any of you start yelling at me, please think about what our Constitution is and does. It defines our freedom and protects us from a tyrannical government. That is, if we follow that great document.

    So, what does our Constitution say? It says, via the Tenth Amendment, that the States and the People of those states should decide what they want to do about gay marriage without any interference from the federal government.

    C Howard Diaz

     

    Comments

    8 Responses to “ Gay Marriage, What Does Our Constitution Say? ”

    1. […] political freedom for the people and to set limits of power for a federal government,” writes C. Howard Diaz. “I cannot stress enough that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are political documents, […]

    2. […] political freedom for the people and to set limits of power for a federal government,” writes C. Howard Diaz. “I cannot stress enough that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are political documents, […]

    3. […] political freedom for the people and to set limits of power for a federal government,” writes C. Howard Diaz. “I cannot stress enough that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are political […]

    4. […] political freedom for the people and to set limits of power for a federal government,” writes C. Howard Diaz. “I cannot stress enough that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are political […]

    5. Gordon (in England) says:

      1. This particular posting clarifying that ‘gay marriage’, as a concept, is outside the Constitution didn’t surprise me.
      I see the Constitution as having been compiled by a bunch of people from different communities – some more powerful than others – trying to foresee the sort of things that might prove troublesome for their “United States”.
      Homosexuality, a bit like intercourse with animals, was probably something they had all heard about or experienced, but they didn’t see ‘marriage’ as a likely problem. No doubt in the future some people will want legalisedunions with their dogs or cats – especially if it brings a tax advantage
      …. The number of adoptions of lesbian women over the years must have shown
      the trend ….

      2. On the more general topic – I also think that – throughout the
      compilation of the Constitution the compilers were a group of people
      representing states, without opposition from another group of people
      representing ‘The Federal Government’, as such, so it’s a relatively short
      and ‘clean’ document – as you demonstrate.

      The starting point was ‘What we don’t want a Federal Government to have
      power to do’, whilst, almost separately, designing the Federal Government’s
      role or their expectations of what it would do for them.

      It is not surprising that Obama – and I’m sure his predecessors – see it as
      restricting – that’s why it exists….

      In today’s climate, where ‘Federal arrangements’ are breaking down all over
      the world it’s no surprise that you and others are saying what you are -
      with , in this case, powerful documentation to support you.

      • admin says:

        Gordon,
        While the two comments you make are bluntly stated, your point that our forefathers were aware of homosexuality and “something they had all heard about or experienced, but they didn’t see ‘marriage’ as a likely problem,” actually supports my contention that the Constitution was not intended to be a moral document from conception. Otherwise they could have outlawed things like homosexual acts from the beginning.

        I believe they wanted America and Americans to be a moral values country and people just as I believe they wanted Americans to believe in God. I believe they wished that all Americans embrace the Bible.
        BUT
        They didn’t want morality dictated at the federal level. I believe, in their minds, they wanted the people to legislate morality at the community level and then the State level without any interference from the federal government. That is why I believe when the Federal Government makes any attempt to forbid “God” our Nativity scenes in our public schools or anywhere, The Federal Government is misconstruing and abusing the responsibility and authority given to it by the States via the Constitution.

        I believe the Constitution wants the Federal Government to stay MUTE on all issues of morality and the Supreme Court was wrong when they allowed decisions on contraceptives, abortion, homosexual acts and the rest. Those decisions were intended for the People and the States.

        In Point 2 you really hit the nail on the head:

        “2. On the more general topic – I also think that – throughout the compilation of the Constitution the compilers were a group of people representing states, without opposition from another group of people representing ‘The Federal Government’”

        You are right, there was no one in the room representing “The Federal Government,” there couldn’t be. It had not yet been created. “The Federal Government,” was the result of many debates by our forefathers and there were undoubtedly some in the room that wanted a stronger central government, but the contract that was finally agreed to and signed by the States created “The Federal Government,” upon completion of our that contract between the States, The United States Constitution.

        As Thomas Jefferson Stated in Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,
        “The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but…by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes [and] delegated to that government certain definite powers,…and…whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…To this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party…”

        I again agree with your statement:

        “The starting point was ‘What we don’t want a Federal Government to have power to do’, whilst, almost separately, designing the Federal Government’s role or their expectations of what it would do for them.”

        The starting point was ‘What we don’t want a Federal Government to have power to do.’ It was their intention while forming the Constitution, but only when they wrote The Bill of Rights did they insure the rights of the People and the States.

        And Finally
        “It is not surprising that Obama – and I’m sure his predecessors – see it as restricting – that’s why it exists….”

        Exactly, that’s why our Constitution exists.

    6. Joe Lang says:

      You are correct, but most people today lack any understanding of the limits that the Constitution placed on the Federal government. Hopefully, your book will open some eyes, but with the current administration, and the messed up media we have a long road to recovery. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz seem most likely to make a difference.

      Here is an article that should interest you:

      http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/herbert-croly-progressive-apostle

      I was not familiar with Herbert Croly.

     

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.


    Fatal error: Class 'ftlink' not found in /home/suanews/public_html/wp-content/themes/speakup_america/footer.php on line 6