Debate over gay marriage continues despite high court ruling

Supporters of gay marriage embrace outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, June 26, 2013, after the court cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California by holding that defenders of California\'s gay marriage ban did not have the right to appeal lower court rulings striking down the ban. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

WASHINGTON – Not all the criticism of the Supreme Court action on same sex marriage comes from the predictable side of the fence.

“I’m not here to give the Supreme Court or Obama or the crooked Congress the right to endorse my love-making. It’s none of their business,” said Bob Kunst of Miami, Fla., who describes himself as a gay American.

Kunst, who turned up outside the Supreme Court for the historic rulings Wednesday morning, contends that the high court should never have become involved in the issue of same sex marriage. Others make the same argument.

“I’m disappointed that the court is meddling with this question,” said the Rev. Rob Schenck, chairman of the D.C.-based Evangelical Church Alliance. Schenck says the justices overstepped their bounds.

“We’re a government of the people, by the people for the people. And every time five lawyers snatch this away from the people it does injury to the society,” Schenck said.

Critics of same sex marriage point out that Proposition 8 banning gay marriage was passed by a majority of California voters and the Defense of Marriage Act was overwhelmingly approved by Congress, before being signed by the president.

While the highest court in the land has had its say, some opponents of same sex marriage aren’t ready to throw in the towel.

“We need a constitutional amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage,” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kansas, who vows to introduce such an amendment as soon as possible.

“If this court’s not going to allow the people to decide, we’re going to have to do it through a federal marriage amendment,” Huelskamp said. His proposed amendment would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

While Schenck says he won’t compromise on his principles that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman, he says the high court’s ruling is an invitation to love more people.

“I think it’s a possibility for me to strongly disagree with you and love you and honor you as a fellow human being,” Schenck said.

Follow @DickUliano and @WTOP on Twitter.


Advertiser Content