Waiting for the 'other shoe to drop' can be distressing. But you know, in the pit of your stomach it is going to drop; probably not in the direction you're hoping for. Well, on Monday, July 28th the 'other shoe' dropped and it definitely was not what we were hoping for. No, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit struck down Virginia's marriage amendment as unconstitutional. By the way, the amendment doesn't ban anything - it just solidifies the meaning of traditional marriage and does not recognize marriages from other states that allow two people of the same sex to get 'married'.
What does this decision mean? Actually, it covers a multitude of 'unintended consequences' but for now I want to look at it in the following three ways.
First, I don't think anyone has really pursued how it affects the act of voting. Haven't we always been told that every vote counts? Haven't we always been told the place to show your pleasure or displeasure is at the ballot box? Haven't some politicians been removed via recall vote by irate citizens displeased with their most stringent gun laws? (Colorado comes to mind). Haven't we always and forever followed the simple rule that the majority vote dominates? Something suddenly changed? Bear in mind the key word here is "VOTE". Also bear in mind the following: Citizens in thirty three (33) states including Virginia VOTED to add to or amend their constitutions to define marriage as between one man and one woman. As of this date, at least 15 of those states have had their VOTE overturned by activist judges. Really, tell me how anyone was denied "equal protection". We all had the ability to vote our preference.
To the best of my knowledge and understanding, the major complaint by the LGBT plaintiffs hinges on this section of the Constitution in Article XIV, Section l. ".....nor shall any State.....deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Well, that's the part I have strong disagreement with and I really need someone knowledgeable to explain to me how a judge can set aside the legitimate votes of citizens thereby violating their equal protection of the law!
To the best of my knowledge and understanding, the major complaint by the LGBT plaintiffs hinges on this section of the Constitution in Article XIV, Section l. ".....nor shall any State.....deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Well, that's the part I have strong disagreement with and I really need someone knowledgeable to explain to me how a judge can set aside the legitimate votes of citizens thereby violating their equal protection of the law!