- Gender and Relationships»
- Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender
The Cost of Same-Sex Marriage
Overruling State Sovereignty
When the US Supreme Court voted to legalize same-sex marriages in June of 2015, not only did it give homosexual couples the Constitutional right to marry, it also gave the attorneys who previously had represented same-sex couples at the state level the justification to petition the courts for compensation of legal fees. Although many states had already passed legislation allowing gay marriage, states like Arizona, Florida, North Carolina and Oklahoma had voter approved state laws in place that would keep marriage defined as being between a man and woman. The 19 states that took their arguments to the US District Courts to defend their respective laws banning gay marriage was legislation that had been passed as the result of a majority vote by the people.
Ever since the 5-4 decision by the US Supreme Court, the lawyers who represented the plaintiffs who had claimed any law prohibiting gay marriage was unconstitutional have been collecting on outstanding legal fees. Thanks to a 40 year-old federal law that allows "the discretion of the prevailing litigant to recover reasonable compensation, each state that defended it's laws against same-sex marriage are being forced to dish out millions of dollars.
Dana Nessel, an attorney in Michigan had this to say: “It’s the price governments pay for defending bigotry.” She made the comment after the judge awarded her law firm $1.8 million.
In Florida, attorneys were awarded $1.1 million for their efforts, while in Arizona, Utah and Oklahoma, legal fees have racked up to nearly $4 million. Nationwide, taxpayers from all nineteen states are being forced to cough up a combined $28.6 million.
The Cost of Your Beliefs
It’s one thing to be forced into covering the legal fees for the same attorneys who fought to overturn something so important that it essentially eliminates the majority vote. However, in their victory, lawyers representing same-sex couples have been very outspoken; almost unruly in their boisterous remarks to the media; almost animated to the effect of kicking someone while their down.
In Arizona, after a federal judge’s ruling that ordered the state to pay out $303,00 in legal fees, attorneys from the gay rights organization "Lambda Legal" proclaimed, “the state of Arizona reached the height of hypocrisy in its argument to continue its ban on gay marriage” announcing that they and their clients were“entitled to be compensated for being subjected to such bigotry and discrimination, not only by state officials, but from the people of Arizona as well”.
The accusations of bigotry and discrimination in this case was an all too familiar rally cry that's been thrown around by the attorneys in these cases. It's pretty obvious, even to the casual observer that their accusations are nothing more than a cheap publicity stunt to try and gain support and sympathy to advance their agenda. I can’t testify to what occurred in other states, however, being from Arizona, one of the last truly conservative states left, I can personally vouch to the fact that opponents of gay marriage that were demonstrating outside the state capital did so with nothing less than common decency and respect.
Being present at the demonstration outside the state capital, and witnessing both sides of the argument, to claim that proponents of Prop 102 demonstrated with anything other than decent behavior is a complete distortion of the truth. The claims that a campaign of slander filled hate speech had been used against them are entirely false, and only goes to prove who the actual hypocrites really are.
From all of the cases where lawyers have been awarded compensation, 15 out of the 19 states have had reports of attorneys making similar public statements alleging discrimination by opponents of same-sex marriage. For the taxpayers being forced to pay these legal fees, it’s a shame that they have to write a check out to people who have absolutely no sense of dignity or moral aptitude in their ability to determine what’s right and what’s wrong.
Use as a TV or Computer Monitor
Defiance of Natural Law
For the ones who still possess the basic intuition of human instinct, we can take comfort in knowing that our state’s representatives did not fail us. The decision was imminent as the US Supreme Court’s decision would’ve overruled the sovereignty of our respective state’s legislation even if they had been successful in their fight in the US District Courts. Either way, the money we have to cough up for these rude and thoughtless attorneys was inevitable.
In spite of the ruling from the highest court in the land, their decision won’t change the opinion of those who still hold true to their intuitions of a moral compass. Due Process and Equal Protection clauses aside, there’s a very good reason why gay-marriage has been prohibited over the past 240 years. Surprisingly, it has nothing to do with discrimination or prejudicial homophobia.
What the five consenting Supreme Court Justices failed to recognize is that marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship spirited by human nature and governed by natural law.
The most common precept of natural law is that we as humans know the difference between right and wrong, and that what is right is good and what is wrong is bad. From that inherent knowledge, we pursue what is good and we avoid what our intuition tells us is wrong. By common sense alone, man is able to perceive what is morally good or bad for him.
We think and use reason to the ends of every purpose for all the choices we make in life. When those choices fail to accommodate reason, our hearts and common sense let us know that it’s morally wrong. From these basic human instincts, for thousands of years our laws, regulations and traditional social decrees have evolved, yet remained firm in their position that same-sex relationships were immoral and therefore they have always been illegal. Until now.
An Imminent Decision?
Our highest court has turned a blind eye to the natural law that has bound our society to a higher moral standard for 6 thousand years. In its transgression, not only have they poured salt on the wounds of all Americans who stood proud in defense of traditional marriage, but also proved once and for all that individual states rights and the peoples vote are actually meaningless.
Of the 5 Chief Justices who voted for same-sex marriage, Justice Anthony Kennedy was the one who authored the opinion of the Supreme Court. At one point in his summation, it appeared his vote would be in favor of upholding the state’s rights to ban gay marriage. “The definition of marriage has been with us for a thousand years and it’s very difficult for the court to say, but we do know better”. Justice Kennedy's swing vote could’ve saved the institution of marriage had he obligated himself to a higher moral standard. If only justice had been served.
However, in his decision, Justice Kennedy had this to say:
“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right”.
What the Chief Justices have failed to explain in their decision is that state legislatures have always proceeded with caution before deciding to fundamentally alter the institution of marriage. Such changes have always stopped to consider scientific evidence concerning the traditional concept of marriage. Child-bearing marital unions have been contemplated, the continued development of the human race has always weighed the decisions of our judges. This is why gay marriage has always been discouraged in the public consensus and unprotected by the courts.
Top Choice Among Consumers
The Misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment
For 150 years the courts have upheld traditional marriage, and done so with consideration for any argument brought forth to the court. Judges have consistently used caution and taken a fervent defense of the authority of individual states, allowing them the latitude to make their own decisions about who can and cannot enter the marital institution.
Furthermore, and most importantly, marriage cannot possibly be treated as a “fundamental right” as gays and lesbians contend because such a right must have a foundation in American history, legal traditions, and practices.
Same-sex marriage arguments have none of these characteristics. Such a notion has been unheard of in law, let alone Constitutional in its claim of supposed proof. When the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted into the Constitution in 1868, it came with a very clear understanding that marriage was the union between one man and one woman. This historic preference is unmistakably defined, leaving one to question how the Chief Justices of today could wrongly interpret what the Constitution permits and demands.
The responsible procreation that takes place within traditional marriage creates a link in that our children are much more than artificial insemination. They are in fact, an undeniable biological reality of what only a man and woman can create. Only opposite-sex unions can produce children. From every vantage point possible, it is best that children be born into a stable union that only marriage can create. This defines the very essence of the 14th Amendments expectations of intended marriage need be and has served not only American ideals of marriage, but has extended the world over for all enduring families. Children prosper with higher certainty when a mother and father teach them the unique values that come from a man and woman.Plain and simple.
Morality + Justice = America
The Supreme Court’s decision has done nothing more than circumvent the institution of marriage by demoralizing the covenant of the American family. They have legalized a purpose based on a gay or lesbian sexual act. It’s a violation of natural law and corruption based on the intent to eliminate the moral perspectives of society. While there is hate in the world and those who make claims to it, the majority of those who object to this ruling do not base their discontent on predetermined bigotry or some archaic prejudice. They do not stand on the grounds of ignorance, nor do they posture and make false accusations to the media.
When they came, they came armed with facts based on natural law, the spirit of morality, knowledge of the Constitution, and let us not forget the most important of all... the righteousness of God's word. Those who fought for what was right did so justifiably as their intentions were based on saving an American tradition that has always been protected until now. They fought against an injustice and a complete breakdown of social respect for something as sacred as family, marriage and the conceived thoughts and ideas we instill in our children about marriage. Unfortunately, not even something so sacred as family, and nothing as evident as natural law or Gods law; not even our nations Constitution could change what appears to be a politically charged decision, motivated by the homosexual community to discourage what’s left of America’s human instincts of morality.
We must question such a denial of democracy, our system of justice and the value of our vote which voices the greater good. The Supreme Court’s failure to recognize the people shows the true character of those who decide our nation's laws, leaving us little confidence in those who exhibit a lack of conviction themselves. In their decision to legalize gay marriage, not only have they failed the sovereignty of 19 states Constitutions, these 5 Justices responsible prove without shame or doubt that their decisions are based on a personal agenda of spite and immoral aptitude.
I wonder if any of the 5 Justices realized as they made their decision that they were really eliminating the very thing that has ever given a jury member the ability to deliberate a decision of guilt or innocence of someone on trial. This ruling minimizes the essential element we all must have in deciding someone’s fate. Justice is only served when our moral instincts direct and incline our better judgement. Once removed from American justice, to live immorally leaves little question about the direction we go as a society. Without morality, justice will fail, as sure as we will certainly fail as a people.