The main purpose of the Constitution is to establish the basic rights of all American citizen. The Constitution of the United States of America defines a framework for the country’s law and order. Any law that is proposed must not violate the 27 amendments, for in those amendments are the sacred rights that protects what our American citizens may or may not do. They are free to do whatever they wish, as long as it doesn’t violate any of the various amendments that are listed as part of in the Constitution, our nation’s bible.

Our Declaration of Independence’s is a statement of principles and freedoms through which our Constitution should be interpreted, which is that we, as American citizens, are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In order for the Constitution to be used properly, compromise needs to be established between the two parties. It is through respecting our Constitution’s Bill of Rights, that the rights of the individual are respected so that the will of the majority doesn’t trample on the minority wishes.

There are clearly some issues that are not compromise able. Gay marriages is one of them. When it comes to gay marriages, no amount of compromising at the same sex couple’s expense would be acceptable to the gay or lesbian communities, since they rightfully feel they should have equal protection and freedom under the law that the straight community receives.

I say “rightfully,” because, those who are against gay marriages find it impossible to come up with a creditable rationale why same sex marriages should be disallowed. What’s expressed in place of rational thought are prejudices rather than any kind of viable, real argument against such a life style.

That’s precisely what Republican Senator Rob Portman was forced to conclude when he learned his son was gay.

In my last blog To Thine Own Self Be True, I discussed how Senator Portman, a Conservative Republican, changed from holding his long held belief that homosexual partners should not be granted the same freedom to marry that the straight population has been allowed to engage in, to believing such unions should be permitted under the law.

As I mentioned in the last blog, upon learning that his son was gay, Senator Portman engaged in much soul searching, which resulted in his reversing his position on gay marriages . One of the reasons he did that was that he wanted to give his son the same opportunity that the rest of his children, his wife and he have had for 26 years, which was to marry, if his gay son so desired.

According to the website Cleveland.com, what in part caused Senator Portman to become more tolerant of people’s sexual orientation different than his own was when he studied the Bible and considered the part love and compassion plays in each of our lives. He also considered what the Golden Rule has taught him, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Those understandings, plus realizing we are all created equal, helped him resolve the conflict he had accepting his son’s sexual orientation.

 The concept that a person’s rights should not be denied unless a compelling reason can be shown that be done, “speaks” to the very basis of what we mean by protecting the American ideal of human rights.

According to our Constitution, our government has an obligation to protect the general welfare and the lives of its citizenry in the best possible way. Furthermore, we must remember that our Declaration of Independence is a statement of principles and freedoms through which our Constitution should be interpreted. That interpretation is that we, as American citizens, are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Whatever is at issue should remain as such, when no  substantive reason is made for taking away an individual or group’s freedoms, other than for capriciousness, prejudice, or fear of the unknown. That’s because no one’s Constitutional rights are violated, where America’s general welfare is threatened, or people’s life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness is endangered. When no danger is present, the status quo should prevail. To do otherwise would be a violation of each of our individual rights as American citizens, which is a violation of each of our Constitutional right.