As a libertarian, I want the Constitution upheld more than anyone. I understand the constitutional argument conservatives have used against the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized gay marriage when they say the 10th Amendment protects the sovereignty of state law. However, I also am aware of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.

And because states do not have rights—individuals do—the Court did, in fact, make a constitutional decision.

First, the First Amendment protects your inherent right to freedom of speech, assembly, and to petition the government. Implicit in your right to engage in ‘First Amendment activities,’ is a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of your political, social, economic, educational, religious and cultural ends. In this instance, the goal is marriage. Is not marriage a social goal? Does it not fulfill a religious obligation for those who consider themselves followers of Christ? Doesn't marriage involve associating yourself with someone who has the same end goal as you—marriage—for the rest of your life (in the privacy of your own home or church, for that matter)?

Second, the Constitution is meant to protect "Life, Liberty, and Property (Pursuit of Happiness)," and libertarians and conservatives agree that property and your pursuit of happiness involve the right to do with your money as you wish without government interference. Well, how do you get your government-granted marriage license? With your own money or your property.

It is only logically and principally consistent of constitutional conservatives to support not only the right to use your own money as you want to purchase whatever health care you want, not only the right to buy whatever guns and ammunition you want, but also the right to buy a license. Whether it is a license to drive a car or be a hairdresser, everyone is granted the "same privileges and immunities" under the law (See the 14th Amendment).

Moreover, the Court states in its opinion that it ruled on, "Whether the 14A requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. The second… whether the 14 Amendment requires a state to recognize a same sex marriage licensed and performed in a state which does grant that right." So, conservatives cannot argue that this case means churches must perform gay weddings. It is the lawful obligation of "equal protection under the law" that states are supposed to protect and the Court simply stated so in this case. So, as long as a state is in the business of setting up special legal statuses (government benefactors, permissions, licenses), then it must do so on an equal basis. Government can't discriminate between certain citizens and certain other citizens.

The Court simply is enforcing the 14th Amendment which states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Sure, marriage may not be a "right" specifically stated in the Constitution, but as long as someone marrying another person does not infringe on the liberty of another person, how is it not a right?

As long as government thinks it should be in the business of marriage by granting licenses to do it, states must treat all citizens of the U.S. equally under these licensure laws.

This ruling also benefits any gun-toting conservatives greatly, because it strengthens their fight against state gun laws that violate the 2nd Amendment.

So, please, conservatives, do not think the Constitution has been shredded by this ruling. It was shredded generations before this ruling, mostly by the New Deal era Court. And this marriage case, like very few past cases, is actually a small defense of its original intent.

Share