When the News Isn't Fit to Print ... Blog

The Nonexistent Inalienable Right to Happiness

In Can You Hear Me Now?, Civil Lefts, Harvard Math on 12/08/2010 at 19:49

Gay Protesters in California (ABC News)

Editor’s Note: Many of my posts are now on Associated Content. Please do me a big, big favor and click on a few of them.

On the constitutional right of gays to marry, get pregnant and own a four-bedroom home with a pool and two-car garage in Rancho Cucamonga. Well of course they have those rights, just like you and I do. Which is not at all.

They have those rights just as every Mexican within walking distance of Nogales, Arizona has the right to amble in, drop a baby and collect welfare checks as the parent of an American citizen for the next 30 years. Not at all. They have those rights the way citizens of South Central Los Angeles have the right to burn down their neighborhood because some PCP-blasted moron got a well-deserved butt kicking by the LAPD.

The right to gay marriage, as argued by turncoat conservative Ted Olson and conveyed by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in overturning the will of the people of California, is an attempt to achieve a right that does not exist in the U.S. Constitution.

Whenever liberals talk about the right of gays to marry and adopt—that is, procreate West Hollywood style—and live just like everybody else (get out your handkerchiefs, this promises tears), stems from their understanding of the “equal protection clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment.

We all know that the Fourteenth Amendment assures the rights of citizenship to African Americans, but it never should have been made law in the first place. The rights of blacks or any other person legally born within the confines of the United States or anyone naturalized under the laws of this country were already protected under the Constitution. A constitutional amendment wasn’t required here; the court merely needed to reverse its deplorable Dred Scott Decision, a blatantly racist ruling handed down in 1857.

President Andrew Johnson could have issued an executive order, much as Lincoln issued the emancipation Proclamation, to enforce that former slaves were granted their constitutional rights. The Racist Democrats would have contested it in the courts, but it would have held with congressional backing.

The Constitution, as written and ratified, states:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” [My emphasis]

The Fourteenth Amendment was a noble but misguided attempt to restate what the Constitution already guaranteed. In fact, Fourteen actually specifically excluded an entire people group, while presuming to grant citizenship to another; those groups being respectively, American Indians and African Americans. (Native Americans were excluded from citizenship rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.)

I am not a lawyer, and there are certainly other reasons for the Fourteenth Amendment, but citizenship—for men at least—was not one of them. Citizenship was implied and understood from the very first line of the original document. The fact that the Framers failed to follow through and grant freedom to the slaves was irrelevant to the sacred document they penned. It guaranteed their citizenship.

Gay marriage, as argued by the former Solicitor General of the United States in California last week, does not exist anywhere in the U.S. Constitution; it does not exist under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because marriage itself is not guaranteed as a right under the constitution.

Regardless of what law school Olson attended, or how learned in the laws of this country he supposes himself, the right for gays to marry cannot be shown under the Constitution, because a right to marriage is not in the document.

Marriage is a privilege, not a right, a matter of historical tradition, administered by the states under our Constitution. In some states first cousins can marry—this will explain New York—but in most states they cannot. In some states, with parental consent, fourteen and even twelve year old children can marry—this will explain Massachusetts—in most they cannot.

For all of time immemorial, marriage has been the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law. In all of history no other definition has been applied. To convey upon a deviant population legitimacy by granting them a right not guaranteed in the Constitution—no matter how politically correct—is an insult to the memory every African American who was beaten, enslaved and murdered at the hands of others.

It is an insult to civil rights.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: