Equal protection under the law does not equate to equal results in American society. Liberal progressives have co-opted and perverted the intentions of the Founding Fathers in order to promote their divisive anti-American agenda: pitting one group against another; in the case of the marriage issue, the gay community against conservative Christians.
The concept of marriage between one woman and one man has informed societies throughout history for thousands of years. Despite its religious connotations and inherently stabilizing influence on society, its primary purpose has been to legitimize and protect the economic interests of otherwise vulnerable children, something gay unions do not biologically produce. As America is a Judeo-Christian country, it falls easily in line with this sensible tradition. Furthermore, as the vast majority of people are heterosexual, it follows that the traditional definition of marriage remain the prevailing one—up and until there is a groundswell of local support by the majority from the state level that this standard be changed. This is still America—power to shape society and freedom to “pursue Happiness”—are supposed to reside with “we the people” to determine her course, not a centralized, overstepping, facelessly bureaucratic, progressive federal government. Indeed, a belligerently vocal minority that uses the law and the levers of big government as a weapon to impose its specialized agenda upon the larger group is as repressive as any overbearing majority. That, unfortunately, is what is happening here.
This is the work both of progressive Democrats (a lá the economically “converted” Obama) and the politically militant ‘gay gestapo’ aided at every turn by an abetting MSM who exploits and magnifies any minor fracas into a major scandal for high viewership and equivalent advertising dollars. Who cares that one mom-and-pop Indiana bakery owned by Christians should on legitimate religious grounds decline to make a cake for a same-sex couple? Is it right that 111 Cakery should be driven out of business due to the stress of hate filled protests by homosexual activists clueless of the First Amendment (no law shall “imped[e] the free exercise of religion”) and the rights of others when they conflict with their own?
Under a tortured, gerrymandered interpretation of the “equal protection clause” (intended only defensively to curtail mistreatment), homosexual activists actually want “special” treatment: a one-size-fits-all solution mandated on high by the powers-that-be in Washington. We need no more “Mother, May I?” government pronouncements of this sort. As with the federal government, this decision should not ultimately reside with the Supreme Court either, but with the states, 37 of which (and the District of Columbia) currently allow gay marriage based upon community standards. At any rate, from a legal perspective the unambiguous dictates of the First Amendment trumps everything. The government and the Court should stay out of our bedrooms, our churches and especially our bakeries.
