By Greg “RU Twisted” Drobny
You know what I have found most interesting about the rabble over the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage? That suddenly a lot of so-called conservatives are trumpeting what libertarians have been saying for decades.
Why is the government involved in marriage at all?
Yeah, that’s not a new concept, Republicans. You’ve been mocking libertarians for a long time while working for your Defense of Marriage Act, only to now have some sort of enlightened epiphany that the federal government shouldn’t be involved in marriage in any way.
Shocking concept that you should have maybe considered more seriously years ago. But I digress.
The next criticism coming from the conservative side of politics is that this was just an example of bad law. That SCOTUS shouldn’t be the ones crafting legislation because the Constitution blaa blaa blaa.
To which I would like to respond here and now with a simple and yet seemingly irreverent question: does the Constitution even matter?
The first response is to get all blustered and bent out of shape while assuring me that, yes, of course it matters! How could I suggest such a thing?!?!
Two things before I continue: One, don’t assume I’m limiting this to the issue of same-sex marriage; it goes well beyond that, as you’ll see. Two, try not to hate me until this is over, at which time you are free to make fun of me in the comments for all that I got wrong (and possibly for my desire to continue the fashion trends of 1975, though I think I can make a pretty strong argument for that).
Now that we have that out of the way, I want you to engage in a little thought experiment. Sit back and imagine that the federal government announced today that it would be creating a law enforcement agency dedicated to marriage. Their intent would be to make sure that all marriages are now in accordance with the law, which includes defining that they are between a man and woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man. Their existence is, we would be assured, for protecting this right of the people. 
“Hogwash!” you say (because everyone in my fantasy talks like an 85-year old). “The Constitution doesn’t allow for that!”
This could (rightly) be a criticism from either side on the same-sex marriage debate, as none of them would want such a thing. Nor should they.
And yet we don’t seem to bat an eye when we have such a thing regarding other “rights.” People recoil in horror at the thought of a marriage police, yet tacitly accept and even endorse numerous other agencies that not only exist but wield tremendous power. One can search the ol’ Constitution high, low, up, down, sideways, and inverted (just like Maverick) and not find justification for several agencies and actions that our federal government funds with your money on a very regular basis.
The kabuki theater known as politics is a perfect example of this very thing. Consider a second thought experiment (sorry, last one I promise).
Let’s say Mr. X goes to Washington, and instead of making a movie with that name, he crafts a law that ends up creating a lot of controversy and affects millions of Americans. The law itself seems to directly counter the principles set forth in the Bill of Rights, but it’s passed anyway because a large group of legislators—elected by the people, of course—thought it sounded good.
In this case, the title question is obvious—did the Constitution stop Mr. X’s law from becoming law? Not only no, but he won’t face any repercussions for it, either.
“But wait!” you say. “That’s why we have the Supreme Court! They can decide whether it’s Constitutional or not. Checks and balances, see!”
Right. And at this point what I would like you to do is to take a brief jaunt through history and realize how wildly inconsistent the Supreme Court is with itself and, more presciently, how inconsistent some of its members are with their own selves. It doesn’t take a Constitutional scholar to realize that the 9 people who are supposedly the greatest legal minds on the planet are every bit as affected by politics, emotion, and logical inconsistencies as the average American.
There is no magic dust that Supreme Court Justices inhale which allows them to be “impartial.” 
This whole process should terrify everyone on every side of all political debates, especially those that consider the topic of individual liberty. If a Justice finds individual rights to be a compelling argument in one area, then he or she should—as crazy as this sounds—hold the same for all areas and all people.
That’s not what happens, of course. But even if it did it wouldn’t matter. Consider that in 1895, the Supreme Court held that income tax was unconstitutional. So Congress, that beacon of rationality, changed the Constitution to….give itself more of your money. Funny how that worked out for them. The federal government, whose powers are supposed to be limited by the Constitution, used that very document to….give itself more power. Yes, I realize that these legislators supposedly acted on behalf of “the people” in this case, but that leads us down a path of mob rule and legislation by popular opinion, which ultimately leads back to the question in the title.
The point of all this is not to argue for or against any specific law. Nor is my intent to say that recent laws—or the way they were passed—are blatantly unconstitutional.
Rather, the point here is to have the audacity to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the Constitution doesn’t at all work like a great many people would like to think. Its use is inconsistent by nearly everyone involved.
Here’s the thing. If you are going to use the Constitution to argue a case for individual liberty, great! Now go and do that consistently in all cases (guns, marriage, drugs, religion, etc.). And if you’re going to use it to press for less freedom and more government control, then be consistent. Don’t scream for the government to step in and curb freedoms in an area considered by many to be a “right” and then turn around and talk about your own special rights.
Political figures, both judges and legislators, regularly ignore everything in that last paragraph. And I’m going to get all prophetic on you as I leave you with this prediction.
Watch and see who was for/against the “equal under the law” argument in the last week the next time a big case regarding the Second Amendment makes it to the Supreme Court, and then look at those same voices. Now, I don’t actually have a crystal ball, but I’m pretty confident in stating here and now that they will be on markedly different sides of argumentation regarding what a “right” is or isn’t and how it should be viewed in light of the law.
If the Constitution isn’t consistently applied, then it matters very little. If it is, then let’s move forward with this whole liberty thing, which I’m a pretty big fan of.
But let’s do it across the board—not just in the areas those with the loudest voices want it in.
You can scream and shout all you want about the Constitution, but when a federal agency is kicking down your door and taking you to the big house because you _______ (insert: had a shotgun with a barrel that was slightly too short, were giving cannabis oil to your sick child, etc.), then it’s just a piece of paper with an abstract theory on it.
So I ask again: does the Constitution matter?