LETTER: Thoughts on Obama & Romney’s Stances on Same-Sex Marriage


Print This Post  Email This Post

Dear Editor,

The President has spoken; “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Robin Roberts, in an ABC News interview. (Washington Post, 9 May 2012, “Obama endorses same-sex marriage,” by Peter Wallsten and Scott Wilson) Mitt Romney was quoted in the same article; “I have the same view on marriage that I had when I was governor and that I’ve expressed many times. I believe that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” which he said at the “Oklahoma Republican Party’s headquarters in Oklahoma City” in response to President Obama’s statement on same sex marriage. Which one of the two is right? Are either one of them right? Are both of them wrong?

Both President Obama and Mitt Romney (the presumptive GOP presidential nominee) were correct in exercising their First Amendment Constitutional right to “Free Speech.” Both men have a differing viewpoint on the same subject and in this country that is acceptable. Those favoring recognizing same sex marriage should not get upset with Mitt Romney’s viewpoint and those against recognizing same sex marriage should not get upset with President Obama’s viewpoint. No one, but no one, should use either President Obama or Mitt Romney as the ultimate authority on the subject. Marriage is a U.S. Constitutional issue, but not for the Federal Government. It is a Tenth Amendment issue; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Since marriage is not a power “delegated to the United States by the Constitution,” nor “prohibited by it to the States” it is, therefore, an issue that is “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That means marriage is an issue to be decided by the “States” and/or the “people,” not the Federal Government, or the President of the United States of America, or any Presidential candidate. It also means no one should be condemned for opposing same sex marriages or praised for supporting same sex marriage.

Marriage is not a “right,” it is a privilege. No one can be forced to get married. On the other hand, people can be forced not to get married; blood brothers and sisters and first cousins are banned from getting married. Additionally, the Federal Government has banned polygamous marriages and bigamy is a crime. If marriage was completely banned in this county that wouldn’t stop people from living together and/or having children. This country is “the land of the free” and we are free to make our own choice on same sex marriage and the choice we individually make should be mutually respected by all. It does not mean others should have to accept our choice, just respect our choice and not condemn it. It also means churches should be respected (tolerated if you choose) on their official stand on marriage. That, my friends, is a First Amendment Constitutional right; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

The only thing I will say about the President and the prospective GOP Presidential candidate is that if either of them is making a statement about same sex marriage (or any other subject) just to get votes to win an election they are wrong. I want someone running this country that is honest and unwavering in their opinions and what they intend to do and not do as President of the United States of America. I want this country to remain the “land of the free and the home of the brave” and a President that will not trample on that. I want a President that will “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” I want an individual in the Oval Office that “will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and will to the best of their ability “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Respectfully,
Charlie Peters

[Have an opinion you’d like to share with our 50,000+ Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, and, pending our review, we’ll most likely publish it.]

Print This Post  Email This Post

Comments are closed.