Guest Column

Same-sex marriage: Rule of law or tyranny?

by Frank D. Banta, Newnan

The institution of marriage is historically a religious matter because for most of human history every community was religiously homogenous. Marriage is built on the recognition that procreation is both natural and essential to the continuation of the human race, and that the family is the fundamental building block of civil society.

Marriage has always been a method of transferring civil responsibility for the bride from her father to her husband, and to establish legal responsibility for any issue of the merged couple. It recognizes that children are incapable of self-support for nearly two decades and publicly recognizes who is responsible for that support.

With the creation of America, the sovereign citizens specified that a general government was necessary to “secure the inalienable rights of citizens” and created our Constitution to enumerate the limited authorities and responsibilities being delegated to that general government to achieve that goal. The Constitution clearly prohibits the general government from presuming any authorities not so enumerated.

Marriage is not an inalienable right despite the fact that all three of the largest religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) concur in the sanctity of marriage as a relationship between man and woman.

Authority over marriage has never been delegated to the general government. In fact, the First Amendment specifically and unequivocally denies Congress any authority to make any law that restricts the free exercise of religion.

The Constitution also clearly states that authorities not granted to the general government are retained by the states or the people. Regulation of marriage has traditionally been a matter administered by state government with respect to limitations on eligibility to marry.

All three major religions (for thousands of years) have classified homosexuality as unnatural and an abomination.

Thirty states (60%) have Constitutional prohibitions against same-sex marriage that cannot be overturned except by state constitutional amendment. The majority of these constitutions specifically prohibit legalized marital partnerships between same-sex individuals regardless of how they are described. Only six states, (reflecting the will of as little as 1.9% of the total US population) permit the issuance of a marriage license to same-sex partners, so effectively 44 states (as much as 98.1% of the population) deny same-sex partners any right to marry or join in any legally recognized civil union.

Thirty-three states in the past decade have confirmed their limitation of marriage to being between one man and one woman by state-wide referendum: these are not ancient laws that don’t reflect the current will of the people.

The same-sex marriage lobby is small but vocal and well-financed.

As with most issues of the progressive agenda, they are supported by the mainstream media to make it appear that they have more popular support than the extremely limited support they actually engage.

Only Congress has been delegated the authority to make law: neither the executive nor judicial branches (including the Supreme Court) have any such authority. Congress is specifically denied any authority to make any law that restricts the free exercise of religion. The people of 88 percent of the States have specifically and intentionally prohibited same-sex marriage.

The First and 14th Amendments deny every government entity in America any authority to force Americans to accept as normal, relationships that their religion has identified as unnatural and unacceptable.

The only constitutional response acceptable from the SCOTUS is that they have no legal, moral, or constitutional jurisdiction to declare same-sex unions permissible unless and until the First Amendment is repealed or modified: an event that is necessarily highly unlikely.

America has been founded as a nation subject to the rule of law, not the rule of popular opinion. Laws can be changed to reflect changes in society, but it must be done in accordance with established rules of law. An out-laying minority has no authority to arbitrarily impose its will on others, especially when it requires repudiation of religious principles that have been the foundation of civil society for thousands of years.

America is either a nation under the rule of law, or a nation under tyranny. We’re soon to see which alternative the Supreme Court supports.



More Opinion

Every dollar counts

We’re glad to see that the Coweta Community Foundation is on the move. The foundation recently announced the launch of its 2014 fundra ... Read More


Rants, Raves & Really?!?

A look back at last week’s highs, lows and whatevers: RAVE: Newnan City Council has approved a $227,000 contract for the engineering d ... Read More


Georgia Says

The Augusta (Georgia) Chronicle on NCAA being heavy handed: Who owns your name, your likeness, your image and your signature? In other word ... Read More


Becoming a hub for technology

The city of Newnan got a major technological boost announcement this week. AT&T has selected our city as one of four in Georgia that wil ... Read More


A stronger man

Boys will be boys. That’s especially true in high school football, where crude jokes, popping someone with a wet towel on their butt, ... Read More

Rants, Raves & Really?!?

A look back at last week’s highs, lows and whatevers: RAVE: Bob and Millie Coggin lead by example, and recently made a substantial gif ... Read More