Court wrong on marriage


The U.S. Supreme Court ruling issued in a very tight vote Friday allowing gay marriage in all 50 states was a disappointing one.

In a 5-4 decision, with Justice Anthony Kennedy siding with the more liberal members of the majority, the court struck down gay marriage bans that encompassed 14 states.

The U.S. Supreme Court couldn’t have gotten it more wrong on this particular case.

Chief Justice John Roberts made some very good arguments in his dissenting opinion, but one of the most compelling is that the issue of marriage is not included in the U.S. Constitution.

In other words, the decision to allow gay marriage should have been left to the states, not the U.S. Supreme Court.

States are much better at deciding what is best for individuals by allowing them to vote on issues through the amendment process during elections. Kentucky, for example, spoke loud and clear in 2004 when 73 percent of Kentuckians voted to pass a ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions.

That same year, more than a dozen other states passed very similar amendments supporting traditional marriage and banning same-sex marriage and civil unions.

In all, 14 states had laws on the books that specifically said same-sex marriages and civil unions would not be performed or recognized in their states.

What part of the will of the people and what they wanted in their respected states did the majority of the court not understand or maybe not want to understand?

Public opinion on the issue has shifted somewhat since more people are becoming more accepting of two people of the same sex marrying each other.

We continue to believe that marriage is between one woman and one man, and we stand by that opinion. We do realize that we are a nation of laws and as a nation of laws we must respect the law of the land, however much we disagree with it.

But at the end of the day, this issue would have been much better handled by the states. In the past 10 years, many states either by referendum or legislature have voted to allow same-sex marriages or civil unions …

We are very disappointed in the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court’s interjecting itself into a matter that individual states had decided.

We also are very disappointed in our own state Attorney General Jack Conway who recently said, “As attorney general of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, I did my duty and defended Kentucky’s constitutional amendment.” …

When an appeal was to be filed to the U.S. Supreme Court on a lower court’s ruling allowing for same-sex marriage, Conway was derelict in his duty and said he would not appeal the lower court’s decision. Gov. Steve Beshear had to hire out-of-state counsel to appeal the ruling to the high court … make no mistake, he didn’t defend the will of the people on the constitutional amendment, and voters who disagree with gay marriage should remember that on Election Day.

The Daily News, Bowling Green

comments powered by Disqus