Liberals Use the Politics of Hate on Gay Marriage Issue

The so called "politics of hate" which liberals accuse conservatives of utilizing are actually a favorite tool of the liberal left on the issue of gay marriage.

By + More
FE_PR_130326GayMarriage.jpg
An opponent of marriage equality stands near the Supreme Court in Washington on March 26, 2013, as arguments were heard on California's voter approved ban on same-sex marriage, Proposition 8.

It is time for the left to look in the mirror. The so called "politics of hate" which liberals accuse conservatives of utilizing are actually a favorite tool of the liberal left.

Never has that been more obvious than in the debate about the rights of homosexuals to marry, or, to put it factually—states' right to define marriage as that between a man and a woman. To be clear, I have no problem at all living in a state where homosexuals can marry. I also believe that states, under the federal constitution, should be able to define marriage because they are not prohibited from doing so.

[See a collection of political cartoons on gay marriage.]

Scanning national media over the last several days, one sees words such as homophobia, bigotry and xenophobia thrown like confetti by liberals at anyone who dare say that under the federal constitution, states have the right to define marriage. These scare tactics are actually working—Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, felt compelled to appear on national TV and explain that Catholic religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman forever, to create life is not bigotry but a religious teaching. The left's response—not enough. Nothing is enough short of changing religious doctrine to fit the beliefs of the liberal masses.

Therein is a huge constitutional problem. As I read the constitution and its amendments, I do not see any constitutional right to marry, but I do see a constitutional right for freedom of religion. This is the exact freedom which pilgrims to the United States have been seeking for hundreds and hundreds of years. It is true that race based definition of marriage is unconstitutional under the amendments passed after the Civil War, but the issue there is racial discrimination, not the right to marry.

[Read the U.S. News Debate: Should the Supreme Court Overturn the Defense of Marriage Act?]

The fact that on most news outlets it was impossible to watch anything but a discussion of gay marriage over the last week is puzzling. This country is crawling economically, unemployment remains stubbornly high, and North Korea and Iran are threatening our national security daily, but these issues are getting little, if any, airtime. The intimidation campaign of the left against any who disagree takes precedence.

It is unquestionable that the decision on states' rights to define marriage will be a seminal one either way it comes down. It is this author's hope that the justices of the Supreme Court will decide the cases based on the Constitution and not the bullying tactics of the left.

  • Read Keith Rupp: Hillary Clinton And the Art of 2016 Presidential Speculation
  • Read Jamie Stiehm: New Hillary Clinton Book Displays Her Diplomatic Strength
  • Check out U.S. News Weekly, now available on iPad