Published September 12, 2004, on AmericanDaily.com
In the heated debate over same-sex marriage, liberals are suddenly championing the most unlikely cause imaginable, at least for supporters of big government—states’ rights. It’s a fascinating double standard to watch in action. Members of the same political persuasion that has tirelessly worked for decades to abolish states’ rights now find the notion irresistible. Diane Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, and even John Kerry are clamoring with righteous fervor for the federal government to ease off and leave the definition of marriage to the states.
The question begging to be asked is: Why?
When it comes to unpopular issues like same-sex marriage, liberals like having one foot in each camp. Outright support of same-sex marriage is political suicide for all but the most liberal candidate, so those who do support it must hide behind the thin veil of states’ rights. It’s a tried and true political tactic, one we’re accustomed to seeing from the Left.
Unfortunately, the Left is not the only place we’re seeing it.
A few heads turned on August 24th when Vice President Dick Cheney—traditionally considered a conservative man—effectively poo-pooed a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and said that the issue of same-sex marriage should be decided at the state level. Historically, the states have made the “basic fundamental decision in terms of defining what constitutes a marriage,” Cheney said at a town hall meeting in Davenport, Iowa.
This view is nothing new from Cheney. During his debate with Senator Joseph Lieberman in 2000, he stated that “people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to” and that federal policy should not address the issue of homosexual relationships.
But times have changed since then. While same-sex marriage was far from being a reality four years ago, activist judges in Massachusetts have thrust it into the national spotlight. Even more, we’re in an election year. For these reasons, many have blasted Cheney for choosing now to open an old division with President Bush on such an important cultural issue.
I see the problem in a different light. Granted, Cheney’s timing could have been better, but there is a broader issue here than simple in-fighting within the Bush administration. While the Vice President’s comments do fly in the face of the President’s stated intent for marriage in this country, they go far beyond that. They show an appalling lack of honesty about an issue that has the power to further erode the moral fabric of America.
Leaving the issue of same-sex marriage up to the states sounds appealing. If it didn’t, liberals like Kerry and Feinstein would never use it as an excuse to oppose amending the Constitution. Conservatives have always rallied for more states’ rights, more control at the local level, and less centralized power in the federal government. But is that really what Mr. Cheney and the liberal elite are after?
The answer is no.
In our modern day of a colossal federal government growing by leaps and bounds every year, leaving a hot-button issue like same-sex marriage to the states is a pipe dream. Liberals know this, and I suspect the Vice President does as well. Whether we like it or not, the definition of marriage will inevitably be decided at the federal level. The only question is whether the American people will make the decision through a Constitutional amendment, or have homosexual marriage foisted on them by activist members of the Supreme Court with a hankering to deal out some “social engineering” for the benefit of us all.
Cheney is an intelligent man. Does he honestly think states can decide a volatile moral issue like same-sex marriage without interference from the federal government? Look at history. For decades abortion laws were left for states to decide… that is until the Supreme Court stepped in and eradicated them all. In our day of judicial tyranny, there’s no such thing as states’ rights when it comes to critical cultural issues. Does our supposedly conservative Vice President really want another blanket Supreme Court decision like “Roe V. Wade?” Such is in our future unless major steps are taken at the federal level to protect marriage.
It’s time Cheney put aside the charade of states’ rights and focused on preserving the moral fabric of America. Our nation did not elect a conservative ticket in 2000 to watch politicians play politics with the sanctity of marriage. Some issues a conscientious conservative can bend on—protecting marriage is not one of them.