Indiana and Utah have Gay Marriage Ban Declared Unconstitutional

On the same day, both Indiana and Utah have been told that their state-wide gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Richard Young (appointed by Bill Clinton) ruled that Indiana was not allowed to enforce its gay marriage ban. In hus decision, he wrote:

Same-sex couples, who would otherwise qualify to marry in Indiana, have the right to marry in Indiana. These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street. The Constitution demands that we treat them as such.

Yes, aside from their life-defining homosexual behavior, gay couples are just like other couples. Brilliant. Murderers are also just like everyone else aside from their life-defining murderous behavior.

Things weren’t much different in Utah, except for the fact that it was a federal judge in Denver passing down his ruling from on high:

The Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.

What is marriage then? Listen to the wording here: “establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws.” Except for that all of these things are being redefined by federal decisions overturning statewide gay marriage bans.

What is a family? Two men or two women living together? They’re called room-mates. Friends maybe. Not a family. What’s a marriage? Saying words over two men? I don’t know what that is. It’s not marriage. Marriage implies the possibility of procreation. That’s the idea of a family too.

Raising children? The only children homosexuals could possibly raise would be adopted children produced by heterosexual reproduction. A gay marriage ban is trying to protect the traditional idea of marriage and family. Why does the federal government need to be involved. Just listen to the hypocrisy: the federal government says that homosexuals should enjoy the “full protection of a state’s marital laws” even while the federal government is overturning those very laws.

Homosexuals are already covered by existing state laws concerning marriage. Any homosexual has as much right to marriage as anyone else. Because gay marriage isn’t marriage at all. What is it? A life-long commitment? Fine. Make it then and be done with it. Tax breaks? Already done. Taking something fundamentally protected by heterosexual, conservative, traditional law and forcing it to bend the knee to homosexual demands? Ah, now we’re getting somewhere.

It’s not about rights. It’s about power.