Unbased First Published on 07/01/2015
Gay Marriage
I think the Supreme Court was wrong to take politicians off the hook. I’m no lawyer or student of law, but as far as I know there is no Federal law which applies to all the states concerning gay marriage, either pro or con.
It’s long been my impression that the Supreme Court decides whether laws comply with our Constitution. As far as I know the Constitution of the United States has nothing to say about gay union, thus there is no standard with which to compare various state laws. The United States Congress is tasked by that Constitution with making laws with concurrence of the President. It was and is Congress’ job to make gay marriage the law of the land. They chickened out. As far as I’m concerned the action of the Supreme court was unconstitutional.
Personally, I don’t care who marries who or what. I do think that the highest calling for humans is perpetuation of the species, same as all of nature. Perpetuation is most efficiently carried out by procreation. Sperm from a male, introduced either naturally or artificially and egg(s) from a female are still required for that purpose.
If gay folks aren’t going to procreate then their efforts toward perpetuation should be directed toward making life easier for those who carry the load of raising families. They can also provide stable homes for children whose natural parents can’t care for them. I think two parents are better than one even if both are of the same sex.
Abortion
U.S. Constitution had nothing to say about the legality of abortion either. In Roe vs Wade, 1973, the Supreme Court made another law without waiting for Congress. They decided abortions during the first trimester were legal nationally but they left to the various states responsibility for setting conditions for timing abortions during second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Legal pushing and shoving have been the orders of the day ever since as states define their positions.
The Supreme Court used the “Privacy” clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to justify their decision. Perhaps that’s same clause underpinning gay marriage. At any rate, I think we need more legal looks at abortion.
Studies done around 2000-200 correlated considerable drop in national crime rates during early to mid 1990s, the eighteenth-twentieth anniversary of Roe vs Wade Theory was that many at risk children, particularly males in inner city single parent families were aborted by mothers who could not adequately raise them alone. Many such children never made it to gangs and street corners in poor neighborhoods.
Perhaps we need laws defining “committed sponsors” of children. Abortion might be solely the mother’s choice except when a sponsor steps up and commits’ him/her self to raise the child with or in absence of that mother. Law would hold that sponsor to the same standards it now holds parents married or unmarried, responsible for child care to adulthood.
Where fathers are involved and committed to raise children, the sole decision to abort should not rest with the prospective mother. Fathers may want children badly. They have no recourse other than with a woman. Healthy not victims of rape, married or unmarried, should be subject to legal penalty if they abort against the wishes of a committed sponsor father.
