When the Supreme Court argued for same-sex "marriage" to be a Constitutional right under the 14th Amendment, justices took the Equal Protection Clause out of context. The Equal Protection Clause (EPC) of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution originated in 1868. It was designed to provide “equal application” of American laws and was created for the sole purpose of providing civil rights for African Americans who were being discriminated against and denied basic rights. Prior to the EPC, the law was not applied equally to each race.
To the great confusion and frustration of constitutional traditionalists and conservative Christians, the EPC is now being used in the marriage debate.
Since 1868, the EPC has been used in courts to end racial discrimination and make America a place where people from every race can have the law applied equally. For over a century, the EPC has been interpreted to protect against racial discrimination, not legitimize same-sex "marriage".
Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, all 50 states had equal protection (guaranteed same rights, privileges and protections to all citizens) and equal application of laws, regardless of a person’s sexual preference. In every state of the Union, any person could have married anyone of the opposite sex they wanted. There was equal application of marriage laws. With this logic, any party desiring to sue the state for not having marriage equality or allowing same-sex marriage based on the 14th Amendment should have been denied for not having Constitutional standing. Same-sex marriage is protected nowhere in the Constitution. Therefore, there is no constitutional standing to sue. After all, the law is equally applied to all citizens regarding marriage. Each citizen benefited from heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman. The court sought equal protection on an issue that already had equal protection and that is why this ruling was wrong.
For the past two centuries in the United States, homosexuality, pedophilia, and incest have been outlawed because it was understood such behaviors were a damaging misuse of God’s good gift of sex. Though they are not equal, they are each uniquely beyond the context of what God intended for sex, much like the Supreme Court ruling was beyond the context of what the Constitution intended for our country’s legal and moral standards. Some legal scholars might dispute my premise, saying homosexual plaintiffs are suffering injury and being denied the fundamental right to marry. Moral standards do not bring about injury, except perhaps by spiritual conviction. This spiritual conviction can then prevent the real injury or harm. Unfortunately, by celebrating sexual behavior outside God’s definition of heterosexual marriage, we put those who indulge in such behavior at risk for injury. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a whole section devoted to addressing HIV/AIDS that results more frequently from unhealthy sexual behavior, including, among other things, homosexuality. Should the state be in the business of legalizing same-sex marriage when such relationships put these plaintiffs at a higher risk for HIV than a heterosexual married couple? Because the Supreme Court did not uphold state-sponsored marriage as one man and one woman, it is now open season in the legal system in respect to each of these scenarios.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided in June to interpret the EPC of the 14th Amendment as giving a legal right to same-sex marriage. By the court doing this, it invalidated itself. The court proved that its knowledge of natural law is surface level. The court also proved that its historical understanding of the 14th amendment is skewed, placing its knowledge of Constitutional law not much higher.
Prior to this ruling, 31 states passed voter-approved amendments that agreed with God’s design for marriage, and ultimately it was upon this divine design that the Constitution was based. God created marriage and it is for Him alone to define, not the Supreme Court of the United States. When it comes to the court weighing in on a question God has already decided upon, maybe the court isn’t so supreme after all.