BLARGistania
05-08-2004, 03:59
Well, this topic seems to be making the rounds again so here we go. This is an essay I wrote for English class this year. Read it, it explains my views. Bear with it though, its long.
“WAR RAGES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES New Army Fighting Back For hundreds of years, they have been oppressed, put down, tortured, and killed. Finally, they are fighting back. Organized resistance is growing against the oppressors and the oppressed appear to be winning some important victories. The fight will continue on for a long time however, for opposition forces are still fierce, but, they face new challenges and a new enemy.
This may sound like headline about a war being fought against a tyrant in the streets. It is, but it is a different sort of war: a war of words and documents. It is a war against hate, fear and intolerance. It is a war to allow homosexuals to gain equal marriage rights within the United States. Within the past six months, a question has come to the forefront of debate within the United States Congress as well as the States’ Congresses. The question is this: is it constitutional to ban homosexuals from marrying? This is a question in which many religious, moral, and civil views conflict. Where the Bible and the constitution collide and where personal freedoms and privacy are adjudicated within our courts.
The focus point of the constitutionality argument comes from three principles which are not contained within the constitution, but provide the basis for the American ideals solidified within the constitution. They are: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Declaration of Independence, pp 2). These words, from the Declaration of Independence, define the inherent rights an American citizen is entitled to. If a constitutional ban on gay marriage were to be enacted, it would destroy the equality of rights that the nation claims itself to be built on. Banning gay marriage classifies the gay community as not qualified to marry, immediately putting them in an inferior position, which leads to further abuse and degradation from parts of the heterosexual community. If they are considered not qualified to marry, then they have been dehumanized because they cannot attain one of the goals which is considered by most people to be central to human life: the right to marry.
The second problem a Constitutional ban on marriage is that it interferes with the pursuit of happiness. The constitution does not promise happiness, as has been noted by the phrase pursuit of happiness within the declaration; however, it does give the right to pursue that happiness. It is when government deliberately interferes with that pursuit of happiness that the act becomes unconstitutional. If a ban were to be enacted preventing gay marriage, then the government would be deliberately interfering with the pursuit of happiness of the gay community, therefore creating an unconstitutional act.
A question often asked is: why should gays be allowed to marry? Throughout history, the act of gays marrying has been looked down upon, banned, and in some cases, openly attacked. Most people cite moral and ethical standards that they hold up as the reasons from preventing gays to marry. The Catholic Church for example, uses the Bible as justification for condemning the act of marrying gays.
But, this context for creating a constitutional ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. In a country where religion and state matters are separated by law, the Bible has no legal standing. Should a ban on gay marriage come into effect, it must be based upon a discernable civil reason and proven to be for the good of the nation. If the sole reason for the law is biblical, then it has no civil origins and therefore, no standing within a court of law.
Using the Bible as justification for a ban on gay marriage would also be in violation of the first amendment which states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, amendment 1)
Since several Buddhist sects condone same sex unions, this sort of law would appear to be in clear violation of the 1st amendment that states.
Another argument against gay marriage is that it does not benefit society because gays and lesbians cannot procreate, therefore defeating the primary purpose of marriage. This argument is not only spurious, it is a ridiculous claim. If the primary purpose of marriage was procreation, then why are people who do not have the ability to reproduce allowed to marry? People who have lost sexual organs, have undergone voluntary sterilization, or are too old to reproduce can still marry, yet they cannot procreate. If these people can marry, why then, prohibit gay people from marrying based upon their ability to procreate? (Bidstrup, Scott, 2)
Some states, such as Vermont, have opted out of the arguments for marriage, by providing civil unions for same-sex couples. The problem with civil unions is that they do not provide all of the benefits of marriage. Civil unions are then, considered to be separate but equal, even though they are not. For example, the MECA education guide, indicates that people in civil unions gain all 300 state benefits guaranteed to them in Vermont, the only state recognizing civil unions, however, they receive none of the 1,049 federal benefits that married couples receive (Civil Union vs. Civil Marriage 1). Fair? No. Separate but equal? No. Civil unions are also non-transferable to other states, are only available in Vermont, and are not recognized at the federal level. Given these differences between the rights associated with marriage and the rights associated with civil unions, it is obvious why the gay community would prefer the privileges of marriage to the privileges of civil unions.
Additionally, Civil Unions would not pass under the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment clearly states “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.” (Constitution of the United States, Amendment 14) If a state government were to create a constitutional ban upon gay marriage, it would find that ban struck down by a 14th amendment challenge. A ban upon gay marriage by a state government is an abridgement of the equality rights of gays, therefore making it unconstitutional. It is an abridgment of their equality because marriage should be a right applicable to all. While the 14th amendment specifically places restrictions upon states’ rights, the general equality provisions also prevent the federal government from passing a ban on gay marriage.
A bill was passed through congress in 1996 known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), this bill is becoming increasingly well known throughout America as opponents of gay marriage begin to use it as a reason for moving to create a constitutional ban on gay marriage. It was passed in 1996 under the Clinton administration and is now being used by the anti-gay activists to defend the sanctity of marriage. DOMA defines marriage as:
“the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." (Defense of marriage Act, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996))
As shown by this bill, marriage is clearly defined within the heterosexual sense only. However, it is recognized in 38 of the 50 states (enough to pass a constitutional amendment). Even though 38 states recognize the bill (Map of States + Gay marriage Laws that Apply to Them), it is shown by the ideals within the Declaration of Independence, the 1st amendment, and the 14th amendment to be unconstitutional, therefore null and void.
Still, there are many states which hold DOMA as fully constitutional and enforceable. In addition, many states, Texas for example, had sodomy laws on their books. These sodomy laws were created under the rationale that homosexuality was a “crime against nature”. However, this has never been proven. The truth is, homosexuality does occur in nature with a fair amount of frequency. According to the Daily Free Press
“Homosexual behavior by both sexes has also been observed in wild and domestic dogs when females are in heat . . . . Male and female homosexual pairs form in numerous primates . . . Male dolphins will also form long lasting unions in which the couple, even though they are part of a larger group, will only perform mating-like, or stimulatory behavior on each other.” (Homosexuality is Natural. Crister, Bart)
Information, such as contained in this article, shows that indeed homosexuality does occur in nature. Accordingly, the argument that homosexuality is a “crime against nature” is proven to be untrue. Recently, the United States Supreme Court struck down these laws as unconstitutional because they were an invasion of privacy (Supreme Court Strikes down Texas Sodomy Law, CNN). The removal of the sodomy laws has forced many people to ask: can the government lawfully regulate what goes on in the bedroom?
The answer to that question is no. According to the case of Lawrence and Garner vs. Texas, the government does not have the right to create laws that regulate what occurs within the bedrooms of consenting adults. Since sodomy laws were removed as a legal argument, the issue of ‘crimes against nature’ was removed, taking away an important stepping stone for the anti-gay activists.
Many anti-gay activists have taken up the flag against gay marriage because they say it will radically alter our society. However, a recent study conducted by the Urban Institute in Washington D.C. says “it is likely to affect less than one in 100 U.S. married couples in the United States today ,” as well as noting that "the reality is the impact on marriage numerically is that gay couples will still make up a tiny fraction of married couples.” (The Real Impact of Gay Marriage on Society, Kelley Beaucar Vlahos) While the anti-gay activists are busy screaming that gay marriage will bring down the way American society works, studies are showing otherwise. In fact, the studies, such as those by the Urban Institute, tend to show that the effect of gay marriage upon U.S. society will be almost nil.
Should a ban on gay marriage make it through the amendment process, the implications for the future could be the reversal of 200 years of moving towards higher levels of freedom. If this amendment should go through, it would fly in the face of the 14th amendment, denying that amendment’s legitimacy. The result of that could easy be a return to public racism, or even re-segregation, eliminating all of what the civil rights movement of the ‘50s and ‘60s worked for. The amendment would also ostracize homosexuals, pushing them further to the fringes of society and making their lifestyle a living hell within a “proper” society.
On the other hand, should legalization of gay marriage take place, it could open up a new level of society. Gay marriage has occurred within many societies such as the ancient Chinese, the Native American tribes, and African cultures. These cultures experienced higher levels of societal well being because gay couples had the sense of belonging within society. Since legalizing gay marriage in 1989, Denmark and Sweden have experienced no problems related to homosexual marriage within their own societies, disproving the myth that gay marriage is harmful to society. The United States should follow this trend with a bill legalizing same sex marriage because of the boons it would provide, such as new areas to tax, a better society due to a sense of belonging and acceptance it has provided to minority groups. (Sullivan, Andrew. 29 – 45)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bidstrup, Scott. Gay Marriage, the Arguments and Motives. 10/13/2000 http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
Crister, Bart. Homosexuality is Natural. Daily Free Press. Wednesday, April 7, 2004 March 27, 2004 http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/2004/04/07/Opinion/Homosexuality.Is.Natural-653911.shtml
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos The Real Impact of Gay Marriage on Society. Fox News. Monday, March 22, 2004 (March 24, 2004) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114697,00.html
Sullivan, Andrew. Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con. New York, Vintage Books. 1997. (29-45)
Supreme Court Strikes down Texas Sodomy Laws. Tuesday, November 18, 2003 Posted: 11:00 AM EST (1600 GMT) (May 2, 2004) http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/
Map of States and Gay Marriage Laws that Apply to Them. 1995-2004 http://www.lc.org/ProFamily/DOMAs.html
Declaration of Independece, 1776, paragraph II
Constitution of the United States, Amendments I, XIV
“WAR RAGES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES New Army Fighting Back For hundreds of years, they have been oppressed, put down, tortured, and killed. Finally, they are fighting back. Organized resistance is growing against the oppressors and the oppressed appear to be winning some important victories. The fight will continue on for a long time however, for opposition forces are still fierce, but, they face new challenges and a new enemy.
This may sound like headline about a war being fought against a tyrant in the streets. It is, but it is a different sort of war: a war of words and documents. It is a war against hate, fear and intolerance. It is a war to allow homosexuals to gain equal marriage rights within the United States. Within the past six months, a question has come to the forefront of debate within the United States Congress as well as the States’ Congresses. The question is this: is it constitutional to ban homosexuals from marrying? This is a question in which many religious, moral, and civil views conflict. Where the Bible and the constitution collide and where personal freedoms and privacy are adjudicated within our courts.
The focus point of the constitutionality argument comes from three principles which are not contained within the constitution, but provide the basis for the American ideals solidified within the constitution. They are: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Declaration of Independence, pp 2). These words, from the Declaration of Independence, define the inherent rights an American citizen is entitled to. If a constitutional ban on gay marriage were to be enacted, it would destroy the equality of rights that the nation claims itself to be built on. Banning gay marriage classifies the gay community as not qualified to marry, immediately putting them in an inferior position, which leads to further abuse and degradation from parts of the heterosexual community. If they are considered not qualified to marry, then they have been dehumanized because they cannot attain one of the goals which is considered by most people to be central to human life: the right to marry.
The second problem a Constitutional ban on marriage is that it interferes with the pursuit of happiness. The constitution does not promise happiness, as has been noted by the phrase pursuit of happiness within the declaration; however, it does give the right to pursue that happiness. It is when government deliberately interferes with that pursuit of happiness that the act becomes unconstitutional. If a ban were to be enacted preventing gay marriage, then the government would be deliberately interfering with the pursuit of happiness of the gay community, therefore creating an unconstitutional act.
A question often asked is: why should gays be allowed to marry? Throughout history, the act of gays marrying has been looked down upon, banned, and in some cases, openly attacked. Most people cite moral and ethical standards that they hold up as the reasons from preventing gays to marry. The Catholic Church for example, uses the Bible as justification for condemning the act of marrying gays.
But, this context for creating a constitutional ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. In a country where religion and state matters are separated by law, the Bible has no legal standing. Should a ban on gay marriage come into effect, it must be based upon a discernable civil reason and proven to be for the good of the nation. If the sole reason for the law is biblical, then it has no civil origins and therefore, no standing within a court of law.
Using the Bible as justification for a ban on gay marriage would also be in violation of the first amendment which states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, amendment 1)
Since several Buddhist sects condone same sex unions, this sort of law would appear to be in clear violation of the 1st amendment that states.
Another argument against gay marriage is that it does not benefit society because gays and lesbians cannot procreate, therefore defeating the primary purpose of marriage. This argument is not only spurious, it is a ridiculous claim. If the primary purpose of marriage was procreation, then why are people who do not have the ability to reproduce allowed to marry? People who have lost sexual organs, have undergone voluntary sterilization, or are too old to reproduce can still marry, yet they cannot procreate. If these people can marry, why then, prohibit gay people from marrying based upon their ability to procreate? (Bidstrup, Scott, 2)
Some states, such as Vermont, have opted out of the arguments for marriage, by providing civil unions for same-sex couples. The problem with civil unions is that they do not provide all of the benefits of marriage. Civil unions are then, considered to be separate but equal, even though they are not. For example, the MECA education guide, indicates that people in civil unions gain all 300 state benefits guaranteed to them in Vermont, the only state recognizing civil unions, however, they receive none of the 1,049 federal benefits that married couples receive (Civil Union vs. Civil Marriage 1). Fair? No. Separate but equal? No. Civil unions are also non-transferable to other states, are only available in Vermont, and are not recognized at the federal level. Given these differences between the rights associated with marriage and the rights associated with civil unions, it is obvious why the gay community would prefer the privileges of marriage to the privileges of civil unions.
Additionally, Civil Unions would not pass under the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment clearly states “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.” (Constitution of the United States, Amendment 14) If a state government were to create a constitutional ban upon gay marriage, it would find that ban struck down by a 14th amendment challenge. A ban upon gay marriage by a state government is an abridgement of the equality rights of gays, therefore making it unconstitutional. It is an abridgment of their equality because marriage should be a right applicable to all. While the 14th amendment specifically places restrictions upon states’ rights, the general equality provisions also prevent the federal government from passing a ban on gay marriage.
A bill was passed through congress in 1996 known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), this bill is becoming increasingly well known throughout America as opponents of gay marriage begin to use it as a reason for moving to create a constitutional ban on gay marriage. It was passed in 1996 under the Clinton administration and is now being used by the anti-gay activists to defend the sanctity of marriage. DOMA defines marriage as:
“the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." (Defense of marriage Act, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996))
As shown by this bill, marriage is clearly defined within the heterosexual sense only. However, it is recognized in 38 of the 50 states (enough to pass a constitutional amendment). Even though 38 states recognize the bill (Map of States + Gay marriage Laws that Apply to Them), it is shown by the ideals within the Declaration of Independence, the 1st amendment, and the 14th amendment to be unconstitutional, therefore null and void.
Still, there are many states which hold DOMA as fully constitutional and enforceable. In addition, many states, Texas for example, had sodomy laws on their books. These sodomy laws were created under the rationale that homosexuality was a “crime against nature”. However, this has never been proven. The truth is, homosexuality does occur in nature with a fair amount of frequency. According to the Daily Free Press
“Homosexual behavior by both sexes has also been observed in wild and domestic dogs when females are in heat . . . . Male and female homosexual pairs form in numerous primates . . . Male dolphins will also form long lasting unions in which the couple, even though they are part of a larger group, will only perform mating-like, or stimulatory behavior on each other.” (Homosexuality is Natural. Crister, Bart)
Information, such as contained in this article, shows that indeed homosexuality does occur in nature. Accordingly, the argument that homosexuality is a “crime against nature” is proven to be untrue. Recently, the United States Supreme Court struck down these laws as unconstitutional because they were an invasion of privacy (Supreme Court Strikes down Texas Sodomy Law, CNN). The removal of the sodomy laws has forced many people to ask: can the government lawfully regulate what goes on in the bedroom?
The answer to that question is no. According to the case of Lawrence and Garner vs. Texas, the government does not have the right to create laws that regulate what occurs within the bedrooms of consenting adults. Since sodomy laws were removed as a legal argument, the issue of ‘crimes against nature’ was removed, taking away an important stepping stone for the anti-gay activists.
Many anti-gay activists have taken up the flag against gay marriage because they say it will radically alter our society. However, a recent study conducted by the Urban Institute in Washington D.C. says “it is likely to affect less than one in 100 U.S. married couples in the United States today ,” as well as noting that "the reality is the impact on marriage numerically is that gay couples will still make up a tiny fraction of married couples.” (The Real Impact of Gay Marriage on Society, Kelley Beaucar Vlahos) While the anti-gay activists are busy screaming that gay marriage will bring down the way American society works, studies are showing otherwise. In fact, the studies, such as those by the Urban Institute, tend to show that the effect of gay marriage upon U.S. society will be almost nil.
Should a ban on gay marriage make it through the amendment process, the implications for the future could be the reversal of 200 years of moving towards higher levels of freedom. If this amendment should go through, it would fly in the face of the 14th amendment, denying that amendment’s legitimacy. The result of that could easy be a return to public racism, or even re-segregation, eliminating all of what the civil rights movement of the ‘50s and ‘60s worked for. The amendment would also ostracize homosexuals, pushing them further to the fringes of society and making their lifestyle a living hell within a “proper” society.
On the other hand, should legalization of gay marriage take place, it could open up a new level of society. Gay marriage has occurred within many societies such as the ancient Chinese, the Native American tribes, and African cultures. These cultures experienced higher levels of societal well being because gay couples had the sense of belonging within society. Since legalizing gay marriage in 1989, Denmark and Sweden have experienced no problems related to homosexual marriage within their own societies, disproving the myth that gay marriage is harmful to society. The United States should follow this trend with a bill legalizing same sex marriage because of the boons it would provide, such as new areas to tax, a better society due to a sense of belonging and acceptance it has provided to minority groups. (Sullivan, Andrew. 29 – 45)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bidstrup, Scott. Gay Marriage, the Arguments and Motives. 10/13/2000 http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
Crister, Bart. Homosexuality is Natural. Daily Free Press. Wednesday, April 7, 2004 March 27, 2004 http://www.dailyfreepress.com/news/2004/04/07/Opinion/Homosexuality.Is.Natural-653911.shtml
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos The Real Impact of Gay Marriage on Society. Fox News. Monday, March 22, 2004 (March 24, 2004) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114697,00.html
Sullivan, Andrew. Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con. New York, Vintage Books. 1997. (29-45)
Supreme Court Strikes down Texas Sodomy Laws. Tuesday, November 18, 2003 Posted: 11:00 AM EST (1600 GMT) (May 2, 2004) http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/
Map of States and Gay Marriage Laws that Apply to Them. 1995-2004 http://www.lc.org/ProFamily/DOMAs.html
Declaration of Independece, 1776, paragraph II
Constitution of the United States, Amendments I, XIV