Marriage not in Constitution

Dana D. Kelley’s opinion, “Trampling Article V,” in the July 10 edition is quite frankly an ill-disguised plea for trampling some citizens’ rights under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States. He attempts a logical display, albeit lame, of why the Supreme Court of the United States doesn’t have the authority to declare some states’ legislation or amendments to their respective constitutions unconstitutional under the same Constitution that he decries is being trampled. As Col. Potter in the TV series “MASH” so eloquently declared when faced with similar aggravations as posed by Mr. Kelley, “Horse hockey!”

Mr. Kelley implies it is perfectly OK for states to deny some rights to some citizens and it is none of the Supreme Court’s business. I do not know when Mr. Kelley last read the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, but I suggest he read them again. He may want to review the job descriptions for the three branches of government to understand that the court is simply doing its job in serving as a check and balance.

Whining is not a virtue. Denying a minority its full constitutional rights is not legal. Marriage is not discussed in the Constitution nor should it have been. People have the right to fall in love and that can lead to marriage and it is not the right of a state to determine which citizens can or cannot exercise their right to marry. Religion has no say in the matter because we, thankfully, are a people who long ago chose not to be governed by religion, any religion, but to govern ourselves under law. It is all quite simple, if one wishes to abide by the rule of law and the Constitution.

My only consternation caused by the ruling on gay marriage is that it was not unanimous. SAM EMERSON

Fayetteville