The United States Supreme Court is not the only place where you can find words turned into silly putty and ambiguity derived from definitive statements. Staying in the world of legal fiction, one may go to some of our state Supreme Courts to find equally or even more imaginative interpretations of "progress" divined from 200-year-old charters.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, for example, discovered in 2003 that the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, adopted by that former colony in 1781, required the state to provide for marriage between people of the same gender. John Adams would be amazed.

But common, ordinary folks can be imaginative, too, when it comes divining new rights or discovering "rights" that have always been there, we just hadn't noticed them before. Right up until last Tuesday, a great many people in Maine were clamoring for the recognition and protection of a "right" that Adams and his generation could hardly have imagined — the aforementioned right, discovered by Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and her colleagues in Massachusetts, of people of the same sex to marry one another. Maine had never declared such a right to be in its or the nation's Constitution, but last spring the Legislature passed and the Governor signed legislation that made marriage either a bi-sexual or unisexual enterprise in Maine, depending on the persuasion or orientation of the couple getting hitched. To hear the proponents of gay marriage tell it, you might think that the right to marry someone of the same gender is a basic, fundamental human right, ranking right up there with the right to worship or engage in free speech or the freedom of the press, or the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. The right to "gay marriage" is neither mentioned nor implied in the Constitution of Maine or that of the United States, but does that matter?

Scratch the surface of most people's thoughts on the Constitution, and you quickly discover that "constitutional " means to them whatever seems reasonable and right "in this day and age." And "unconstitutional" means whatever may strike one as unreasonable or backward or insufficiently enlightened or progressive. It has little or nothing to do with what is in the text or can even be reasonably deduced from reading "between the lines" of any Constitution. Unfortunately, some people who think that way are called "Your Honor." As a result we have a system of constitutional law that, as Joseph Sobran has so well observed, often seems as unrelated to the written Constitution as the Unitarian Church is to the Book of Revelation.

But leaving aside the Constitution, which is what our lawmakers do most of the time, let us consider in terms of basic fairness, whether the rights claimed by today's "progressives" are at all just. At a superficial glance, they may appear so. Heterosexual couples can marry; why not homosexual couples?  Homosexuality has been part of the human race, apparently, since the beginning. Many famous poets, playwrights, musicians, athletes, and clergy have been what is now called "gay." But it is only recently that any people have attempted to establish "gay marriage" as a societal norm on an equal footing with heterosexual unions. It has never been widely accepted that "gay is just as good as straight." We have had drunkards in our midst since at least the days of Noah. Some of them have been great writers, poets, athletes and clergymen. But no one seriously suggests drunk is just as good as sober. Perhaps that's because most of us are sober most of the time.

It has been more than two decades since the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the right of a state to punish people for engaging in private in homosexual activity. It has been several years, in fact, since that Court ruled states no longer may do so. A same-sex couple has the untrammeled freedom to enjoy any living arrangement that suits the couple's proclivities and desires. In some states, homosexuals are even protected by anti-discrimination laws from being refused housing or other accommodations, based on their sexual orientation. So if a landlord would choose not to rent to a couple who would use the living space he is making available for homosexual activity, he may be found in violation of the law. So who is using the force of law to "impose their morality" on others?   

Never mind. The law pretty well protects the ability of homosexuals to have all the options that others have for arranging their own domiciles. Some states have also established a legal entity called a civil union to give "gay" couples all the legal advantages of marriage without calling it "marriage." But there's the rub. The proponents of "gay marriage" insist that we the people of a state or commonwealth call it marriage in our laws and perhaps in our Constitution. This is where solid majorities have, on all 31 occasions that people have been given the opportunity to vote on it, drawn the line and said, "No." Marriage is what it is. To borrow Jefferson's phrase about what an activist court might do to a written constitution, we will not make of marriage a "blank page by construction."

And yet that is what the "gay" activists insist we must do, and they claim it is their right to demand we do so. So the fight has long since ceased to be over the freedom of "gay" couples to live as they wish, it is over our right as a people to not call it what they wish to call it, which is clearly what it is not. We are not all Unitarians yet. We prefer our laws and words bear some resemblance to the principles and realities they are supposed to reflect and from which they are believed to emanate.

Thus, "Maggie" Marshall and her cohorts may solemnly proclaim in the name of the Bay State's 228-year-old Constitution that marriage means same-sex as well as heterosexual unions, but that does not make it so. If the same court were to declare four-sided figures have as much right as the three-sided to the designation "triangle," it would not repeal the law of contradiction, which holds that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. A thing cannot be a triangle and a rectangle at the same time. Neither can a union be both homosexual and a "marriage."

That is why liberals have never been happy with the Hyde Amendment, which forbids federal subsidies of most abortions. It is not enough for them to declare, as the U.S. Supreme Court has done, that a woman has a "right" to abort the child in her womb or, to put it in more polite language, to "terminate her pregnancy." They also declare that she has a right to have the rest of us pay for it, even though the "rest of us" will always include a great many who believe the deliberate, planned termination of an innocent human life is a crime that cries out to God for vengeance. Or to put it in a "kinder, gentler" way, we shall be judged by what we do for "the least of these," our brethren.

In fairness, it must be said that while the Republican Party is often contemptible in its cowardice, the nation's Democrats appear to have taken out a long-term lease on a residence and a platform well beneath the level of contempt. I recall watching and listening to the sickening spectacle of a debate in New Hampshire before the 2000 presidential primary between Democrats Al Gore, then the Vice President, and former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey. Each was claiming to be more devoted than the other to abortion "rights." Both pledged support for federal funding of abortion. Both men were competing for the nomination of the Party that claims Thomas Jefferson as its founder. It is the Party that no longer has a clue about Jeffersonian principles. Jefferson said that to force someone to support with his dollars a belief or practice that person finds morally detestable is a form of tyranny. But the Democratic Party has not been opposed to tyranny in a long time.

But a few stalwart pro-life conservatives among the Democrats in Congress have prevailed upon their colleagues to exclude coverage for abortions in the healthcare reform legislation that passed the House over this past weekend. To do so, they had to overcome the accounting fiction that the money from the subsidized portion of the healthcare coverage, which most people will receive, would be effectively segregated from the part of the coverage the individual pays for with her own money. Abortion coverage should be available under the latter goes the argument made by the champions of "choice." It is the argument made by the New York Times in its lead editorial today.

The Times is sophisticated enough to know better. Dollars are a fungible commodity. They get co-mingled in a system of public and private insurance payments and plans. Millions of people who still have the respect for life once held in common by this and other nations throughout civilization, East and West, North and South, do not want money to go for abortions in any scheme funded in whole or in part by the federal government, which belongs to us, "the People." 

"We urge the Senate to stand strong behind a compromise that would preserve a woman's right to abortion services," the Times said this morning. That is like saying that the right to freedom of speech and of the press means we must have federally subsidized microphones, broadcast towers, and printing presses. But the New York Times wouldn't like that for that would diminish its role as the Oracle on 42nd Street. And as taxpayers they would object to being forced to subsidize ideas and causes they don't believe in.

Welcome to the free world.

Photo: AP Images

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (19)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Tedd Adams said:

	Talk about twisted logic Your twisted logic barely warrants a response, but in case anyone might have missed the concept, the basic right in question here is not an explicit right to "gay marriage" or even marriage per se... it is a right clearly defined in the United States Constitution, 14th Amendment and that is "EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW."
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009
Votes: -2

adam said:

	... lol. yeah "myths." like the right to marry someone of another race, or religion, as the bans that even preceded that, were clearly just mythological. or the right to reimagine history with our foundation being based on christianity.
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009
Votes: -4

Bonnie said:

... Do you have the "right" to marry? Think about this carefully. Do you REALLY have the right to marry? Not talking about gender, or race, or religion. DO YOU REALLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY? Then, explain to me why you need to obtain a license to get married? Explain to me why you can ONLY be married by clergy or a justice of some kind? So, I ask again, is marriage a "right"... or is it a "privilege"?

report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009
Votes: +2

Jack Kenny said:

	Myths of Rights are wrong I don't know how to reply to "the right to reimagine history" or the claim that the framers and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment intended to require States to provide for same-sex marriage. JK
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009 | url
Votes: +5

Sean wills said:

Domiciles? Am I to assume that having the right to 'arrange our own domiciles' means we should stop complaining about not being able to marry our partners? Being protecting gay people from housing or employment discrimination (in the places where we are protected) is about the very least I'd expect from any society that doesn't make an absolute mockery of civil equality. We are not drunkards. We're decent human beings, despite what the apparently 'sober' teachings of the Bible might claim, and we're asking that you stop treating us as second-class citizens.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009
Votes: -3

G said:

	... Homosexuals are correct. They should be treated like first class citizens.... of HELL!
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009
Votes: +0

Brett said:

... Bonnie, we have a natural right to "holy matrimony". Marriage is a recognition from the STATE. Holy Matrimony is God's binding. Don't get a license, I know many people who are civilly considered married. Without a marriage license, you can't rely on the State to help you in divorces and what not. Too me, if the relationship cannot procreate on it's own, then it's nature is different from a relationship that can. Thus it needs to be defined in a different way. The STATE can recognize ANY relationship as "marriage" it wants, since it is granting the license. Holy matrimony does not require a license because God is recognizing the relationship as valid as declared by His revealed word. I'm looking forward to the polygamy bandwagon!

report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009
Votes: +2

Vinnie said:

What is going on here? I'm a little bit confused, this is supposed to be a libertarian web site (I thought)? I find myself disagreeing with everything written by the author. Is he really saying that all of these arguments are boiling down to the choice of the words 'marriage' versus 'civil union'? I must disagree strongly that a gay couple can achieve everything possible that a married couple can achieve, without being sanctioned by the state. Federal and state law discriminate against unmarried individuals in a variety of ways. For example, tax laws treat them differently. Medical visitation rights. Passing on of estates. Insurance policies. To say that an unmarried couple can achieve equal treatment under the law that a married couple can achieve is either sheer ignorance or willful oversight. The question should not be, whether to call it a civil union, or a marriage, but whether the government should be involved at all! Or why couples should get preferential treatment. I am completely against income taxes and government meddling in markets. However, if we must have these things, at least let them apply to everyone equally!

report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009
Votes: -3

Todd said:

Rights? When interest groups are approaching the state to legislate, we are not dealing with rights, we are dealing with benefits. The state, supposedly, protects our God-given rights in a republic. If gays seeking benefits from the state violates your sense of decency, how about the state engaging in killing? AND, how about them making us pay for it? Last I checked, the basic Law is do no harm to others bodies, rights or properties. There are much bigger fish to fry than gays getting "married."

report abuse vote down vote up

November 10, 2009
Votes: +1

Lee Gonzales said:

They have come out of the closet... and now they think that they can teach us about the origin of rights! Terry can hardly keep himself from pounding out a response to Mr Kenny's article and yet claims Mr. Kenny's article "barely warrants a response." So why respond? And why leave out the history and the original intent of the 14th Amendment? Terry offers piffle arguments and emotion-charged nonsense. Lawyers and crooked politicians and fool judges have used and continue to employ "twisted logic" to put their own meaning on the 14th amendment. The amendment was adopted in 1868 shortly after the war of Northern aggression ended. "Logic" will tell you that it was intended to protect" a. former slaves____ b. Illegal aliens from various parts of the world_____ c. homosexuals______ d. visitors from another planet______ From some of the illogical and incoherent responses I would not be surprised that these instant Constitution experts would check b,c and d. If there is the least bit of libertarianism sparking around in their brains they would recognize that the adoption of the 14th amendment has been used by the left and Constitution haters to attack the 10th amendment. Certainly at the time there were those who knew that the 14th would lead to federal intrusion into states rights but they were a minority voice. But only a fool thinks that the 14th amendment protects sodomites and their play pretend marriages!

report abuse vote down vote up

November 11, 2009
Votes: +3

Tedd Adams said:

Personal message from the author Nice apples to oranges comparison there. You drink and drive, you get arrested. You drive on the left side of the road, you get arrested. You kill someone, you get arrested. All examples apply equally to all citizens. Allow heterosexual marriage but ban same-sex marriage - does NOT apply equally to all citizens. So I have a right to marry someone of the opposite gender. What good does that do me? You also have the right to marry someone of the same gender in 5 states, but I don't see you scrambling to take advantage of that "right"! Absurd! And if you're going to respond, please do so on the board, not to my email directly. Tedd ---- Jack Kenny wrote: > > > As in an equal right to drive drunk as well as sober? An equal right > to drive on the left as well as the right side of the road? An equal > right to kill as well as heal? > > Everyone has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite gender. > You are equally protected under the law. Do you really think the > people who voted to ratify the 14th Amendment intended to mandate > that states provide for same-sex marriage? > > So whose logic is twisted? > > JK

report abuse vote down vote up

November 11, 2009
Votes: +0

Florida Warren said:

I disagree with your disagreement! Quote from Vinnie: I must disagree strongly that a gay couple can achieve everything possible that a married couple can achieve, without being sanctioned by the state. Federal and state law discriminate against unmarried individuals in a variety of ways. For example, tax laws treat them differently. Medical visitation rights. Passing on of estates. Insurance policies. Married couple are actually at a disadvantage in many areas (Social Security being one of them) so that some retired couples live together rather than marry because their SS would be cut. And military widows get their spousal befits eliminated when they remarry. Anyone can pay a visitation to a patient in a hospital with the patient's consent. You don't need a marriage license. And estates can be passed on to one's cat if one wishes. If you have a will you can designate anyone you want, married or not. the same holds for beneficiaries of insurance policies. These are all red herrings.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 11, 2009
Votes: +0

Florida Warren said:

	Pardon! Quote from Comment Title: Personal message from the author Author: Tedd Adams Email: TOP SECRET "And if you're going to respond, please do so on the board, not to my email directly." Tedd Oh EXCU-U-U-Z-Z-Z him! He didn't know he was violating your privacy by responding to your super-duper, top-secret email, Tedd! Please forgive him!
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 11, 2009
Votes: +0

David D said:

Is the 14th Amendment obsolete? According to Lee Gonzales the 14th amendment applies ONLY to "former slaves". In his world of black & white everything can be narrowed down to A B C or D. Interesting that in his multiple choice test he attempted to compare equal protection for homosexulas to equal protection for "visitors from another planet". But my real question to Mr Gonzales is are you saying the 14th amendment is now obsolete? After all, not many people are considered "former slaves" in today's society. If the 14th amendment was written to protect former slaves from "unequal protection under the law" do you really think that was the sole intention of the amendment? If it was, why where "former slaves" not mentioned in the text of the amendment. It actually says "all persons born or naturalized in the United States...." That means it applies to everyone, not just former slaves. Obviously the authors of the 14th amendment did not set out to give gays the right to marry. But, by there actions they granted "equal protection under the law" to everyone "born or naturalized in the United States". By telling us "what was intended" by the 4th amendment YOU are the one using "twisted logic". According to Mr Gonzales we can skim through the constitution, legal contracts, and any other document we so chose and declare "I know this is what it says, but here is what they meant....."

report abuse vote down vote up

November 11, 2009
Votes: +0

Lee Gonzales said:

Context for the dummies "Obviously the authors of the 14th amendment did not set out to give gays the right to marry." Good for you, you understood that part! Their intentions were not grant any special priveleges to sodomites to play pretend at marriage. One hundred and forty one years later some joker says: "But I gotta get married to my mule judge cuz I lovz him with allz my heartz, Judgz." The judge will ask: "in what contest was that amendment passed, son?" Mule boy [ with a stupid look on his face] : "Whatz contex , your honor sir?"

report abuse vote down vote up

November 12, 2009
Votes: +0

Mar Raz said:

... Suppressed Medical Records (File 5100-13465/001) St. Catharines, Ontario (Pearson Park) - Privacy Commissioner of Canada (Sect. 25,26,2 Jennifer Stoddart / G. Neary - C.M.H.A/C.A.M.H. - Brock University Further details: http://bleacherreport.com/users/10698-updated_bio_bwbok http://www.google.com/profiles/silenced436 I have had "questionable" incidents with the Niagara Regional Police (NRP) in which I requested copies of the reports; I was told to apply at the Privacy Commissioner for the documents. **Take Note of who was awarded the Director of Campus Security Services at Brock University.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 12, 2009
Votes: +0

university media said:

Cite YOUR facts Jack. Your last paragraph gives an argument based on the fact that the government doesn't do this and that today. Well Actually - the federal government does subsidize media.....voice of america, pbs, help to stations making DTV transition, your dtv box, government printing office, IBB, ---read the public broadcasting act of 1964. ---get the facts - the biggest piece of the pie to public broadcasting does not come from "viewers like you". PBS is just one example..... Your myths of rights are wrong - do your research - cite your information of what laws - etc. You have the right to free speech, but not passing along incorrect information as a way to validate your position. I don't know why I wasted my time reading your story.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 13, 2009
Votes: +1

Jack Kenny said:

Read before reacting, please University media should read--with comprehension--the paragraph to which he is responding. The sentence UM claims is so loaded with inaccuracy reads as follows: "That is like saying that the right to freedom of speech and of the press means we must have federally subsidized microphones, broadcast towers, and printing presses." The fact that there is some limited subsidy of broadcast media does not mean anyone believes those subsidies are constitutionally required. You didn't "waste" enough time reading before responding, UM.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 13, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Lee Gonzales said:

David D. needs a lesson onthe 14th Amendment and the meaning of slavery DAVID D asks: "...why where "former slaves" not mentioned in the text of the [14th]amendment." My answer: The 14th was a continuation of the 13th which does mention slavery. Your historical ignorance is one thing, but still not an excuse. Stop emoting and think. David D says: "it applies to everyone, not just former slaves." My response: If the 14th was abolished or amended as Ron Paul has suggested we do via Article II,section 2 all American citizens would have their God-given rights intact. No state is going to revert back to the Antebellum age and institute a plantation system of slavery. If slavery is to have any meaning then it must be applied to the federal government's taxation plantation.We abolished one form of slavery and instituted other forms like personal income taxes and the draft. The irony of the 14th is that it is being used by crooked illegal alien antagonists into forcing American taxpayers into servitude. We are forced to pay for the birthing of illegal aliens' babies. These "anchor babies" serve as a giant pacifier that sucks the baby's relatives across the border. If that isn't slavery in reverse I don't know what is! David D: "By telling us 'what was intended' by the[sic] 4th amendment ... According to Mr Gonzales we can skim through the constitution, legal contracts, and any other document we so [sic] chose and declare "I know this is what it says, but here is what they meant....." My response: David,I'm not certain you made yourself clear with that statement. Would you sign a contract that could easily be interpreted to mean whatever the other party wanted it to mean? You might but not I. After 141 years and generations growing up without an appreciation for the Constitution and American history we have generations of uneducated and miseducated people who are like the eloi who are curious about the "talking rings" but whose message they cannot comprehend.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eloi

report abuse vote down vote up

November 14, 2009
Votes: +1