As I mention in my book, “A Charter of Negative Liberties, Defining the Bill of Rights and Other Commentary“:
“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. ”
The fact that moral issues are “not mentioned in our Constitution” or Bill of Rights is a HUGE statement by our forefathers.
The fact that our forefathers covered all things “not mentioned in the Constitution” with an explanation of what to do about all things “not mentioned in the Constitution” is an even HUGER statement.
They addressed just that in the Tenth Amendment, which states:
“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.”
I think I’ve made my case; the federal government was not given the power to discuss or have an opinion on matters of concern with morality. Our forefathers left moral decisions to the State and the People.
MARRIAGE, defined as “The Holy State of Matrimony,” is not mentioned in our Constitution or Bill of Rights because marriage is a moral and holy state that a man and a woman enter as dictated by the Holy Bible, and other moral documents among other faiths. Marriage has been practiced for centuries and God has defined marriage as a moral and holy state.
So, if you have been understanding my argument regarding the fact that the federal government has NO standing on any issue of morality, you will understand that it includes marriage.
That means the State and the People have the authority to define marriage and the Supreme Court and any lower federal courts have no authority to pass judgement on an issue concerning morality.
In fact, per the Constitution, they can’t offer a legal opinion.
The People of the State of California voted to amend their State Constitution and the California Supreme Court upheld the amendment after hearing three lawsuits on the matter, (Strauss el al. v Horton, Tyler el al. v. State of California et al., and City and County of San Francisco et al. v. Horton et al.)
“The lawsuits claimed that revoking the right of same sex couples to marry is a constitutional revision rather than an amendment. In California, both constitutional amendments and revisions require that a majority of the voters approve the ballot initiative. However, a revision, as defined as a “substantial alteration of the entire constitution rather than to a less extensive change in one or more provisions, ” also requires the prior approval of 2/3 of each house of the California State Legislature.”
So the lawsuits claimed that the following ONE sentence is a “revision” and is a “substantial alteration of the entire constitution?” You read it.
“Sec. 7.5 Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
That’s it! No wonder the California Supreme Court upheld the amendment. It doesn’t rise to the level of a “revision.”
The United States Supreme Court should finally do what is Constitutional and tell America the federal government is not allowed to be in the marriage definition business and reverse the decisions made by the lower federal courts on this issue.
God Bless America!
C Howard Diaz