Hi, and be gentle.
My name is Drew, and I am a young Republican residing in the great state of Virginia. I am excited to write in my diary here at RedState not only because I value the opinions of fellow Republicans, but because I enjoy feedback on my opinions as well. You’ll learn from my blog that I am like many young Republicans this day and age; I am fiscally conservative but socially moderate to liberal. I do not hide behind the veil of Libertarianism because most Libertarians prefer to stay non-biased on most issues (ie leave people alone, let them do as they please). That is not me. I am passionate about my issues, and will subsequently be presenting them to you for your feedback. First, I am an ardent fiscal conservative. I am in the fight, so to speak, on every fiscal issue important to Americans, especially those identifying with the Republican party. That said, I feel that Republicans like me are few. Therefore, I’m using my first diary entry to discuss the social issue I am most passionate about: Gay marriage.
We Republicans feel it is our duty to protect citizens against the never-ending encroachments on individual liberties made by the government. Our weapon of choice: the Constitution. Embedded in this document are rights and freedoms guaranteed to citizens that are found nowhere else in the world. It is the tool that loosed the bonds of slavery, rejected Jim Crow, and brought equality to women and men. Now, our beloved Constitution calls on us once again to defend the inalienable rights of our brothers and sisters.
I received an email a month or two ago from Joseph Backholm, Executive Director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington. He was addressing the pro-gay marriage movement’s use of Kim Kardashian’s failed marriage to prove that it’s not homosexuals, but celebrities and those who do not take marriage seriously that are ruining its sanctity. He rejected this premise by arguing that a debate over who is ruining the sanctity of marriage is irrelevant because “a relationship involving two people of the same-sex is materially different than a relationship involving people of the opposite sex.” I would like to address this not from my religious views, but from the views expressed in the document I swore to uphold – the Constitution.
Mr. Backholm’s argument is that heterosexual and homosexual marriages are “fundamentally different”, but gives no example, save an analogy of dogs and cats. He poses that dogs and cats both have fur, tails and four legs, but are fundamentally different. Though they are different, the Constitution would recognize them both (rightfully) as animals. The dog and cat analogy is tired and tried. It’s the same as a male and female, black and white, or American and Japanese analogy. These were struck down based on the eventual unconstitutionality, so why not homosexual marriage?
A universal point of agreement here is that the Bible condemns homosexuality. And I, too, feel that heterosexual marriages are the best scenario for growing a society. However, relegating homosexuals to unions rather than marriages places them in a separate-but-equal class. The Supreme Court’s Rational Basis Test asks if the discrimination is reasonable to achieve a legitimate government interest. Denying the same marriage right to homosexuals afforded to heterosexuals fails this test. The only interest the government may have is religiously based. If this is the case, then denying the rights is a violation of all homosexual’s first amendment right to not have their government respect a religion’s law over them.
In Brown v. Board of Education the Court decided “separate but equal” was not equal. The decision was based on intangibles rather than tangibles. The Negro students (as they were referred to in Brown v. Board of Education) in Kansas were given equality facilities, equality in curricula, and equality in faculty. These were tangible equalities that were easy to recognize. But the intangible factor of being separated from the white students still made them inferior; even deprived them of equal opportunity. The Court said: “To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” Now, if the issue of intangible inequalities affecting Negro students was important enough to warrant protection from the Supreme Court, why not homosexuals in their pursuit of marriage? If separate-but-equal is a practice no longer deemed constitutional in any case, why is it still practiced with homosexuals?
The Court’s rationale for its ruling in Brown was the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which states “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I cannot in good conscience extend this protection to all classes of citizens but one. I am fully aware of condemnation of sin in the Bible, but I am also aware of the numerous other sins in the Bible that do not get relegated to second-class citizenship. Making homosexuals second-class citizens based on biblical teachings not only violates homosexuals’ protection under the Fourteenth Amendment; it makes humans the decider of which sin is greater. This is something I’m not willing to do neither biblically, nor constitutionally.
*these views are my own, and do not in any way reflect the views of my employers and/or coworkers*