Why the gay marriage question is not like racism

Robert George, the courageous professor of constitutional law at Princeton, explains today why saying that gay marriage is not marriage is nothing like old arguments against interracial marriage.

For one thing, such arguments and laws were used rarely in the history of civilization and only to keep races apart.  In contrast, laws upholding the marriage of a man and a woman have been made by every culture to bring men and women together.

George also shows that the constitution does not give the federal government authority to change the definition of marriage, or to endorse a new definition.  So a claim by the Supreme Court that this is a new constitutional right would be plainly false.  Just as Dred Scott and Roe v Wade claimed that the Constitution allowed things which it plainly does not.

The proper constitutional thing for the Court to do would be to turn this back to the states, so that the forces of democracy would be set loose to work.

If the Court instead takes upon itself new moral authority to redefine marriage, then we will have a new usurpation of legislative authority, and a further strengthening of governmental tyranny.  And the Church will be ever closer to its second- and third-century status as embattled and persecuted.