Today brought the first part of the arguments in the current term of the Supreme Court concerning the issue of gay marriage. The case in question concerns the choice of California's voters to ban gay marriage. The voters passed an amendment to the California constitution which prohibits same sex marriage. A federal district judge struck down the amendment on federal constitutional grounds. While there are many issues being discussed about this case, the core issue is whether or not there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. Let's focus on that.
1) Marriage has traditionally been governed by state law rather than federal law. While that fact does not resolve the dispute, it does go far to push for allowing the states to continue to make that determination.
2) The provision of the Constitution which provides the basis for the argument that there is a right to same sex marriage is the Fourteenth Amendment. It is undeniable that when that amendment was passed, no one considered it applicable to same sex marriage. Indeed, same sex relations were criminal acts at the time the amendment was ratified. Clearly the original intent of the amendment did not cover same sex marriage.
3) Under the interpretation of the amendment which the proponents of same sex marriage are pushing, there is no difference between same sex marriage, polygamy, or even stranger forms of "marriage" like bestiality. If each individual has the constitutional right to marry whom he or she chooses, then every choice so made must be acceptable.
4) The state clearly has an interest in assuring that, to the extent possible, children are raised in the homes of their parents and that such homes are as stable as possible. Assuring that those homes are comprised of a man and a woman who are married to each other is a choice which the state could make and which cannot be said to be irrational or discriminatory.
Put all this together and one finds that the proper decision for the Supreme Court is to find that a choice by a state to label as marriage just a union between one man and one woman is constitutionally proper. No federal constitutional right exists which would bar such definition.
Nothing in this decision would prevent a state from deciding to allow same sex marriage. The point, however, is that the United States' Constitution does not require such recognition. The issue is one to be decided by the people acting through the state legislatures.
1) Marriage has traditionally been governed by state law rather than federal law. While that fact does not resolve the dispute, it does go far to push for allowing the states to continue to make that determination.
2) The provision of the Constitution which provides the basis for the argument that there is a right to same sex marriage is the Fourteenth Amendment. It is undeniable that when that amendment was passed, no one considered it applicable to same sex marriage. Indeed, same sex relations were criminal acts at the time the amendment was ratified. Clearly the original intent of the amendment did not cover same sex marriage.
3) Under the interpretation of the amendment which the proponents of same sex marriage are pushing, there is no difference between same sex marriage, polygamy, or even stranger forms of "marriage" like bestiality. If each individual has the constitutional right to marry whom he or she chooses, then every choice so made must be acceptable.
4) The state clearly has an interest in assuring that, to the extent possible, children are raised in the homes of their parents and that such homes are as stable as possible. Assuring that those homes are comprised of a man and a woman who are married to each other is a choice which the state could make and which cannot be said to be irrational or discriminatory.
Put all this together and one finds that the proper decision for the Supreme Court is to find that a choice by a state to label as marriage just a union between one man and one woman is constitutionally proper. No federal constitutional right exists which would bar such definition.
Nothing in this decision would prevent a state from deciding to allow same sex marriage. The point, however, is that the United States' Constitution does not require such recognition. The issue is one to be decided by the people acting through the state legislatures.
No comments:
Post a Comment