On gay rights, Constitution does not apply morality to equality

Since most college students live in a media bubble and don't follow current events many of you may not be aware of Obama's recent promise to end the military's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." It seems that this effort will soon draw the issue of gay rights and its partner gay marriage to the political battlefront. It is the issue of whether the protections and privileges the government grants heterosexual couples should be extended to gay couples that I will address here. For American history has shown that when one demographic is denied equal treatment and suffers repeated abuses, they will persevere until the government yields to their demands. I here reference the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that "No State shall.deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," as the basis for my position. The law which must be applied is the First Amendment's guarantee to freedom of association. The most intimate association between two people is that of marriage. Under the Constitution, we must evaluate whether the association between homosexual and heterosexual couples is fundamentally different. No doubt it is, but this truth comes through a judgment of value and not through any objective legal analysis. Where in the Constitution does it say anything about applying a moral or, as is the case with gay marriage, religious evaluations to questions of equality? Does not our government strive for a wall of separation between judgments of law and faith? The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, does not view citizens differently based on any moral doctrine of an apparent majority. A compromise must be found which protects the rights of the homosexual citizen as a minority while being sensitive to the concerns of a majority who cannot bring themselves to legalize gay marriage.

My question is, what defines marriage? For the faithful it certainly isn't some government certification or any piece of paper. Marriage is a union of spirit sanctified by God. I am completely against gay marriage, yet I would grant homosexuals, as United States citizens, the equal protection of association under the Constitution. I would define all unions recognized by the government as civil unions and leave marriage to the church. The great theologian CS Lewis made this distinction between the two unions when he married his wife twice; once to give her his British citizenship in the eyes of the state and again for love before God. It is time to render unto Caesar that which is his. The faithful may resent the legal recognition of gay unions; homosexuals may feel denied the label of being married. What should be remembered is that what is right is seldom popular and, in this case, what is popular in the eyes of either side is emphatically wrong.