Given the recent Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage we have seen a hug upheaval from those on all sides of the issue. We have seen the far left gay activists heading off of the deep end as they rub it in the faces of Christian conservatives. We have also seen many on the far right become quite nervous as to how this ruling will affect religious institutions such as private schools, hospitals, and most importantly houses of worship. Many think that fear is far-fetched and unwarranted.
But in his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts predicted a clash ahead between religious freedom and same-sex marriage. He specifically noted the dilemma for religious colleges that provide married student housing, and adoption agencies that won’t place children with gay couples.
“There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this court,” Roberts wrote.
While we keep hearing that there is nothing to worry about, clearly the justices had considered the possible legal repercussions their ruling would have for many far removed from the two same sex individuals getting hitched. How will religious based institutions be treated if they refuse to hire those who do not fall in line with their beliefs? Will the government actually use the force of law and begin prosecuting businesses for sticking to their deeply held religious beliefs? This is precisely why the federal government should have never entered this arena in the first place, regardless of who is marrying who there is no right to marriage outlined in the Constitution. As a result marriage law should reside at the state level and no higher.
As this debate becomes a major player in the upcoming presidential election we are beginning to see how the potential candidates are handling the issue.
The libertarian-leaning presidential hopeful walks a fine line in a new column in Timemagazine between his support of traditional marriage and his calls for limited government by arguing that the government shouldn’t be licensing marriage in the first place.
I’m not sure what all of the other candidates stances are so far on this issue but this is definitely a stance I can get behind. As with many other issues, Rand Paul takes the liberty stance here which is to keep government out of it. We need someone in office who will fight to get government out of arenas like this and back to dealing with issues outlined in the Constitution.
“The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage,” he writes.
Paul warns that the Supreme Court could “involve the police power of the state in churches, schools, church hospitals” if those religious institutions don’t comply with the court’s recent decision.
“I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others,” he writes.
This is something the activists fail to realize when they go on their quests for things like gay marriage, gun control, racial equality, etc. They petition the federal government to make laws to appease whatever their cause is while ignorantly refusing to look at the possible implications of those laws further down the road. They also fail to see how those laws may be interpreted or twisted when a new group of politicians are elected into office. This is why the founders designed a Constitution greatly limiting the powers placed on a central authority, the federal government, and as a result placed more power within each individual state. Unless we get back to this mindset we are headed down the road to destruction.