Constitutional Rights

The US Constitution was written with the purpose of both restricting the government and protecting the rights of the people from the government. The types of rights it protects are defined as pre-existing, natural, and/or God-given. Likewise the constitutions of the various states in this country. The Constitution does not attempt to protect that which is unnatural. So when a Florida judge yesterday decided that a law restricting adoption to traditional married couples was unconstitutional, she was declaring that the constitution protects that which nature itself (basic biology) has denied.

Some try to pervert this by arguing that not all traditional couples are willing or able to have children of their own. This specious argument is merely an attempt to divert attention from the basic, natural, biological way of things by focusing on the exceptions. An exception does not a rule make. It still takes a male and a female to produce children, and the God-given (or natural) design is that children have both a father and mother. Those who argue that all children need is love are naive at best and deceptive at worst. Today's children are tomorrow's adults. Yes, children need food, clothing, shelter, education, direction, values, friendship, love, and so much more. But perhaps the most important thing children need is the perspective, lessons, and skills they gain from two beings that are different in nature: a father and mother.

Others will attempt to twist the notion of natural rights by pointing out that humans, by nature, don't belong on the moon. The Constitution protects the people from the government. It does not prevent the people from choosing the activities they will pursue, and it does not create rights—it protects natural, pre-existing, God-given rights. If the people decide to adopt a law reserving adoption for a married man and woman, then the government's place is to abide by it, conditioned on that law fitting in with the governing document, the Constitution that was created by the people (the "We the People" in the preamble). To argue that the Constitution prevents the people from enacting laws that preserve natural, pre-existing rights is ridiculous. To argue that the Constitution protects the biologically impossible was never the intent and is totally absurd.

References
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97478955
Excerpt:

"A Miami judge ruled Tuesday that there is no rational, scientific or moral reason that sexual orientation should be a barrier to adopting children, finalizing the adoption of two siblings by their gay foster father."