The U.S. Constitution is at the heart of our American democracy. Although it encompasses many amendments, the First Amendment addresses our most fundamental freedoms. This amendment guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of expression (including speech, press, assembly, association, and belief, and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The Supreme Court interprets the amendments and makes decisions on what is protected or isn’t protected by these rights. The Court has heard many cases over the decades, and decided that the First Amendment applied to our federal government, and that the “due process clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment protects our First Amendment rights from interference from our state governments. However, the debate over our rights continues to be challenged especially when it comes to our societies’ morals and values, which are often religiously based.
One of the most contentious issues today is the debate over same-sex marriage. The lines appear to be clearly drawn between proponents and opponents, and it became a central component of the issues debated during the recent presidential election. Furthermore, just this week the Supreme Court announced that it will hear its first case on the issue, and like other “landmark cases,” their decision will clearly set a president that will finally clarify the constitutional legality of same-sex marriage. Consequently, this is a “hot topic” being discussed frequently by many in the mass media, and also on the Internet and blogs. One of those blogs, Awkwardly Political, addressed this issue, and made a thoughtful and well-argued case in favor of same-sex couples being able to marry. Marriage Discrimination, written by Jamie aka, addresses many of the issues opponents have against this form of marriage. More specifically, the claim that, “same-sex marriage would negatively impact the sanctity of marriage, the nuclear family, gender roles, and the children that may be raised by homosexual couples.” What is important to note here, is that our definition of all of these things is morally, religiously, and traditionally based, and not spelled out in the Constitution, or any laws for that matter. Therefore, Jamie states, “While I can appreciate… disapproval of same-sex marriages, I do not believe that legislation should be based on religious teachings. As I wrote in a previous entry, religious legislation places limitations on the rights of society as a whole. I would expect such biased legislation from a theocratic nation, not a democratic republic like the United States.” I agree with Jamie, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, however, it also has an “establishment clause” which clearly prohibits our government from establishing an official religion, or having a preference for one religion over another. Furthermore, it strictly enforces the separation of church and state. In addition, the “free exercise of religion clause” also prohibits the government from interfering with an individual’s practice of their religion. However, this did not keep the government from passing laws that made same-sex marriage illegal even though the definition of marriage is based solely on religious teachings, and traditional values and morals founded based on those teachings.
Proponents for same-sex marriage, like Jamie, feel strongly that discrimination is really at the heart of this matter. She states, “Marriage discrimination is not limited to same-sex marriage, but extends to interracial, interfaith, and interdenominational marriage…in the United States, interfaith and interdenominational marriages are neither prohibited nor regulated by the government, but may be subject to religious authority.” Jamie supports this claim by pointing to a case the Supreme Court heard in 1967 regarding inter-racial marriage. Loving v. Virginia was a case where an inter-racial couple that married and were charged with violating anti-miscegenation laws, challenged the legislation and won. The Court determined that the law was unconstitutional and the decision ended marriage restrictions that discriminated based on race. Therefore, if the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect our rights when if comes to age, race, gender, why shouldn’t they also protect our sexual orientation as well? The Court also asserted in this same case, “that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…‘Under our Constitution’ wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, ‘the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the state”(Loving). Why then, do we not have the freedom to marry whatever gender we want?
Whether we believe as Jamie does that, “sexual orientation is an innate trait” or “homosexuality (is) a conscious decision” is irrelevant. What really matters here, is that we claim to be so proud of, and vehemently defend our Constitutional rights, and yet we are so quick to take those same rights away from others because we simply have a different opinion or find the choices of others are religiously offensive or objectionable. According to The Supreme Court, this attitude is considered under the First Amendment to be unconstitutional. During the case of Texas v. Johnson, the court heard arguments about what constitutes freedom of speech, and in the final decision, the Court stated that, “one of the bedrock principles underlying the First Amendment is that the government may not prohibit expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable”(Texas). Aren’t the opponents of same-sex marriage doing just that?
We have come a long way in our society when it comes to protecting and defending human rights, because many of the morals and values at the heart of this fight, are rooted in religious and moral beliefs that are woven into the very fabric of who we are. Unfortunately, those same beliefs are the roots of discrimination, and the history of mankind has always been plagued with this insidious social problem. However, history has also shown us that persistence pays off. Therefore, proponents of same-sex marriage need to persevere because ultimately the facts point to the Constitution being on their side.
Works Cited:
"LOVING v. VIRGINIA." Loving v. Virginia. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, n.d. Web. 13 Dec. 2012. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_395
"TEXAS v. JOHNSON." Texas v. Johnson. The
Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, n.d. Web. 13 Dec. 2012. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_155/
No comments:
Post a Comment