In May 2012, President Obama has come to a revelation. His position on marriage “evolved”. He now is comfortable with the concept, but feels that the legalization of gay marriage is a state issue. Of course, shortly after the President’s revelation, Republican challenger Mitt Romney rebutted the President’s position with his own revelation. Mr. Romney would support a constitutional amendment defining marriage.
Who is right?
Neither! The President and Mr. Romney are both misguided. If they were truly principled as both men profess, they would not be debating an equally misguided position. Mr. Romney’s position is that in order to protect the virtue of marriage a constitutional amendment is required. Our President, a constitutional lawyer, believes that marriage is to be defined by the States in accordance with the 10th amendment. The Federal Government can mandate health insurance but defining marriage is going too far. Really?
Marriage is a religious concept. It is a ritual and commitment defined by faith for thousands of years. And yet, we Americans struggle in defining marriage. As a religious concept, certainly marriage is protected from the State. The First Amendment clearly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”. How is defining marriage, right or wrong, not a clear violation of the first amendment?
The State has no business trying to define marriage. This is the realm of God and God alone. Certainly the State is totally incapable as it continues to demonstrate year over year. The State, at best, should only be able to define civil unions. Adults can enter into a union and pull their assets and resources for the benefit of the union. The State can respect marriage by automatically creating unions as a result of a marriage but this is the extent of the States’ involvement in marriage, respect not control.