What’s interesting here is that I don’t really read many Catholics who argue this from a constitutional perspective.
Keep in mind that in the scope of this decision, bans on same-sex marriage are only because the voters believe that marriage between a man and a woman is superior to marriage between two people of the same gender.
And that’s basically what the position of the Catholic Church is, right? For primarily religious reasons, gay marriage is bad. It’s a sin that has a grave possibility of sending you to hell. It’s a crime against nature and the way God intended the world to be, and so on.
Unfortunately, the judge ruled in this case that that doesn’t form a rational basis for denying the fundamental right of marriage under the constitution.
And there’s a reason those rights exist. They’re protected in the constitution, and they’re very hard to change – and for good reason. As a nation, we don’t want a tyranny of the majority taking away rights from the oppressed minority. That’s against the highest law of the land, and we’ve made it very hard to take away their fundamental rights – like the right to vote, the right to marry, the right to equal protection under the law, the right to reasonable privacy, freedom of religion, and so on.
And you guys should accept that. Accept that you want to restrict a particular subset of the population from a fundamental right that everyone else has – the right to enter into a lawful marriage, with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities, the right to adopt, and so on – but work to change it where you’re *supposed *to strip people of some of their fundamental rights. There are channels to that, and they can be found in a new constitutional amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
