The article, "Supreme Court Refuses To Stop Gay Marriages In Alabama", discusses the Supreme Court decision this past Monday (February 9, 2015) to refuse to halt same-sex marriages in the state of Alabama. This makes Alabama the 37th state where gay marriage is now legal. This should mean that this matter is settled for goo, right? Wrong. The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court sent out an order telling lower-level judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, effectively defying the federal government. The governor of Alabama also made a statement saying that he would not take any action to deter or encourage the issuing of these licenses. Therefore, only some same-sex couples were able to get marriage licenses in the state that day and many were denied. This is a clear example of federalism within the governmental system of the United States. A state is denying a ruling that it deemed to be too far of an extension of federal power. It is pretty ironic that such an action would occur in that part of the country. Only time will tell if Alabama will win this struggle (I highly doubt it.)
Alright guys, I am sorry to open this clusterbomb of an issue again, but it was too good of an example of federalism to let go without discussing. I was shocked when I read this headline. I personally thought that this would be the second to last state to legalize gay marriage (looking at you Mississippi). This whole process has gotten so dragged out that I am looking forward to the definitive, nationwide ruling of the Supreme Court to come, just to bring an end to this debate. I am typically for state's rights, but I am going to swing a little left here. The individual states have no right to decide upon the natural rights of the citizens of the United States of America. In a completely SECULAR sense all people deserve the natural right to marry who they please (and by "whom" I mean another human being). Now when gay marriage is legal throughout the United States, should they be entitled to the same medical coverage as a heterosexual couple? No, they shouldn't as they should not need birth control, etc.
That's just semantics though. This may make it sound like I am for the empirical concept of homosexuality which I am not. From my Christian point of view, homosexual acts go against the divine Word of God and are a blatant misuse of his creation. For all you far left-wingers who always say that this teaching came from the Old Testament and Jewish tradition which in itself is wrong, look up 1 Timothy 1:8-10 and Romans 1:26-27. I'm not one to argue with St. Paul.
To conclude, I have to respect the separation of Church and State in this case. If a statute of the government limits the free will of the citizens (which God inherently gave every living person), that statute should be abolished. As long as the legalization of gay marriage does does not inhibit my right to hold and practice faith in my beliefs, I cannot find any SECULAR reasons that it should not be legal.
No comments:
Post a Comment