On Nov. 2, 2004, the voters in 11 states said no to same-sex marriage by passing constitutional amendments. This was done in order to head off judges legislating from the bench. True to form, within 48 hours, two lesbian “couples” filed a federal lawsuit challenging Oklahoma’s new marriage law.
The basis for this lawsuit is that the state amendment violates their due-process and equal-protection rights under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Sure as the sun shines, the American Civil Liberties Union’s pack of scavenging lawyers will use Lawrence vs. Texas as their precedent. The decision in that case is nothing short of an abomination. Not only did it strip a state of its sovereignty, like a vulture ripping apart its kill, but those legal elitists sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court wrapped their decision up in foreign law. Dr. Edwin Vieira does propose remedies in his masterful work, “How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary,” (pages 149-171) and I quote in part one pertinent paragraph:
Lawrence created conflict between the General Government and the States because a majority of Justices, under color of the 14th Amendment (illegitimately construed at least in part according to foreign law), purported to strip Texas (and, by logical extension and stare decisis, all the States) of part of the reserved sovereign power that makes them States – in the sense of independent governments, rather than mere political subordinates of the General Government. In such a case, interposition becomes a matter of the States’ self-defense and self-preservation qua States, and therefore, a matter of preserving the Constitution against judicial usurpation.
We are born with God-given rights that no government can take away or convert to privileges. Since the ACLU is using the 14th Amendment as a basis for their argument, are they saying their client’s privileges are being violated? See Section 1 in part which reads: “… No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”
There is a world of difference between rights and privileges. No state constitution can nullify or violate federally guaranteed rights. On the other hand, privileges can be curtailed or taken away.
Setting aside the legal wrangling that is now under way by the cash cow driven lawyers for the ACLU, one must examine the claim that homosexuals and lesbians are “born that way” and have no choice in their sexual “orientation” because this is the crux of the matter regarding rights.
There is no credible scientific evidence that humans are born homosexual or lesbian. None. In the past, the homosexual-lesbian community attempted to use the findings of homosexual scientist Simon LeVay to prove there was a genetic predisposition. LeVay’s findings have been proven to be skewed and outright bogus. Once that became ineffective, the new mantra became one of “civil rights.”
In their fine work, “My Genes Made Me Do It,” Neil and Briar Whitehead show in a clear, concise, comprehensive analysis and careful examination that there is only one conclusion regarding the “born that way” argument: scientific evidence does not support current beliefs that homosexuality is a genetic, intrinsic or fixed behavior.
As there is no scientific evidence of any kind to back up the claims of homosexuals and lesbians of being “born that way,” how can they claim a violation of their civil rights (or privileges under the 14th Amendment)? This is the most basic question when it comes to the question of “rights” for homosexuals and lesbians.
If this is a clearly a matter of preference, then how can this group of people be extended special constitutional protections? The obvious answer is that there should be no special consideration given to homosexual and lesbians concerning matters of civil rights if their rancid and unhealthy sexual preferences are just that – preferred.
This battle will rage on until this one question is asked and answered properly based on valid science. Opposition to same-sex marriages and “domestic partner” laws has nothing to do with how nice a homosexual or lesbian might be or how dedicated they are to home and hearth. In America, we do not extend constitutional protections to pedophiles or perverts who want to have sex with animals because they might claim they are “born that way.” The list will become endless if one gets away with claiming “My genes made me do it!”
That is the single biggest legal consideration regarding the argument about “gay rights.” The question is: Will the attorneys representing the states being sued go to the heart of the matter or will they play right into the hands of the ACLU by defending a losing argument, i.e., violation of civil rights, due process or equal protection because the plaintiffs are allegedly “born that way”?
Shouldn’t the clear argument be that since there isn’t a scintilla of scientific evidence to back up such claims, the plaintiffs have no legal argument under the 14th Amendment because their sexual habits are chosen, not genetic?