Voting is a Right; Marriage is Not, by Kyle Scott

from Texas GOP Vote by Kyle Scott

Voting is a Right; Marriage is Not

• By Kyle Scott

Voting is a right; marriage is not. The case of Hollingsworth v. Perry currently before the Supreme Court raises the question of whether California’s restriction on gay marriage is constitutional. However, a question just as large looms in the background and could be even more damaging to the nation if the Supreme Court moves to strike down Proposition 8. Proposition 8 was approved by a majority of California voters through a referendum in the 2008 elections. The question before the Supreme Court is not just whether gay marriage is constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment but whether we still live within a republican system of government. If the Supreme Court decides to overturn Proposition 8, it will have violated the rights of California voters for the benefit of a small minority whose rights were never at risk.

Judicial review is a fundamental part of a republican system of government as it allows for the minority to have recourse when its rights are trampled by the majority. And restricting the majority from taking advantage of the minority is one of the benefits of a republic over a democracy, and a republic is what we were given by our founders, which was nowhere more clearly explained than in James Madison’s Federalist Paper #10.
But this is not what the Court is being asked to do in this case. The Court is being asked to overturn a law that does not threaten or strip any group of a right.
In order for judicial review to serve its purpose, and not step into the area of judicial activism, the Court can only overturn popularly enacted laws when those laws violate rights. However, not everything qualifies as a right. Just because a person or a group wants something does not mean it is a right.
The clearest definition of rights can be found in an Aristotelean understanding of human nature which serves as the basis of virtue ethics and serves as a foundational aspect of the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. Moreover, the Aristotelean justification of rights is what our natural law understanding of rights is built upon as it was handed down to us by our founders, most especially Thomas Jefferson.
Aristotle determined that man was by nature a political being because he needs to communicate and reason. Thus, a person, to reach their full personhood and live naturally, must be free to communicate and reason. Rights are grounded in this understanding of human nature. A right is something that allows a person to communicate and reason. Voting is a right because it allows an individual to communicate with the political establishment. Censorship is a violation of one’s rights because it stifles a person’s ability to reason and communicate. Coercion, compulsion and bribery are unethical because they deny a person’s ability to reason and think freely.
Marriage is not a right because it does nothing to stop reason or communication. And because it is not a right, the Supreme Court should restrain themselves and let the voice of the majority in California stand. In fact, the Supreme Court would violate the rights of the voters of California by overturning Proposition 8.
In this instance, gay and lesbian couples have not had their rights violated; they simply lost on a policy issue. Had the voters of California denied gays and lesbians the right to vote in the 2008 elections when Proposition 8 was on the ballot, or if California passed a law that would only allow heterosexuals to vote or have the freedom speech, then an appeal to the Supreme Court could be justified. But in this instance there has been no violations of rights which would make any decision to overturn Proposition 8 an abuse of our republican system of government.

read story here: http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/stop-big-government/voting-right-marriage-not-0052821

Justice Scalia: If you Make Laws Against Murder, You Can Make Laws Against Homosexuality

the following article is from The Hill:

Justice Scalia defends comparing laws against homosexuality, murder

By Justin Sink - 12/11/12 09:47 AM ET

 

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia compared homosexuality and murder on Monday as he argued at a Princeton seminar that elected bodies should be allowed to regulate actions they see as immoral.

"If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?" Scalia said, according to The Associated Press.

 

The justice's comments are sure to draw attention with the Supreme Court set to enter the debate over gay marriage in its coming term. 
Scalia was asked about controversial comments he had made in the past that argued that the constitutionality of subjects like the death penalty, abortion or sodomy laws were all "easy" to decide by considering the Constitution as understood by its writers.

Scalia said that while he did not believe such hyperbole was "necessary," he did think it was "effective" in forwarding his argument that legislatures should be allowed to ban acts they believe to be immoral.

"It's a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the 'reduction to the absurd,' " Scalia said.

Scalia said he did not equate homosexuality morally with murder, but was making a point about the state's ability to regulate them.
"I'm surprised you aren't persuaded," he deadpanned to the audience member who asked him about his views.
The Supreme Court announced last week that it will hear arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state. The court is expected to rule whether the ban against gay marriage is constitutional, and whether the federal government should recognize gay marriage for purposes including tax filings, Social Security benefits and immigration.

see more here:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/272161-scalia-defends-equating-bans-on-gay-marriage-murder

US Supreme Court To Rule on Gay Marriage Ban, Could Impact Texas Constitutional Marriage Amendment

Texas, along with the majority of states in America, overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. This measure was meant to protect traditional marriage and the true institution of marriage that has been around since the days of Adam and Eve. The constitutional amendment in Texas that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman effectively bans gay marriage in Texas. The amendment was passed as a way to prevent a liberal judge from striking down a regular legislature passed marriage law. It was a certainty that the Texas constitutional marriage amendment would make its way to the United States Supreme Court and it looks like it finally has.

 

the following article is from Texas Values:

High Court To Rule on Marriage, Could Impact Texas Constitution

Austin, Texas, Dec. 7, 2012 – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will rule on whether or not voters have a right to define marriage as one man, one woman. The case out of California involves Proposition 8, a measure supported by a majority of voters to define marriage as between one man and one woman. If the Court strikes down the right of the people to define marriage as one man, one woman, it would affect every state’s right to approve such a definition, one which is currently found in the Texas Constitution.
Texas Values President and Attorney Jonathan Saenz released the following statement:
“The U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to put this issue to rest once and for all, and that’s what we expect them to do, in favor of traditional marriage. The definition of marriage is between one man and one woman. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there a prohibition against the people defining marriage as between a man and a woman. If the Court strikes down the only definition of marriage, it will be the most obvious and egregious example of judicial activism that we have ever seen since Roe v. Wade.”