Same-Sex Marriage: A Constitutional Analysis
The U.S. Constitution in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate In the late 1980's a man lost his partner of many years. In his partner's final months he had to cope not only with the loss of someone he had loved and cared for through the years, he also had to struggle against being denied hospital visitation, he was denied input into his partner's medical care, and he worried about how to pay the mounting medical bills as his employer's health insurance plan did not cover his partner. But the worst was yet to come. When he attempted to arrange for the funeral and burial his partner had requested, he was told that his partner's brother, who had not spoken to him in over ten years, had come forward to take charge of the arrangements. The brother wanted to have him cremated so that he could throw the ashes in the toilet, urinate on them, and flush them down. They battled in court for over six months while the body remained in refrigeration. The man won his case against the brother, but at the cost of extreme mental anguish and a stack of legal bills to add to the pile of medical bills. This was allowed to happen because despite the years of love and devotion, they were not legally a family. The law prevented them from being married bec
(Baird, 205) Many people see such marriages as a threat to their religious beliefs and to the institution of marriage itself, while many in the gay and lesbian community see it as a matter of fundamental rights and the protection of their families. (Goldblatt) Yet, marriage licenses are granted to people who are past their childbearing years. The Full Faith and Credit clause makes it mandatory for states to recognize the judicial proceedings of other states, including marriage. Even more disturbing is a proposed amendment to the constitution that seeks to defile the very document that was ratified for the purpose of ensuring civil rights and freedoms by adding language that restricts the rights and freedoms of America's gay and lesbian citizens. It is also argued that states should be allowed to pass laws to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states because states are allowed autonomy. Until the decision was struck down, it could have been argued that because it is illegal in many states for same-sex couples to have sexual relations that to allow same-sex marriage would also be illegal, as the relationship could not be legally consummated. Article VI Section 3 defines America as a republic free from laws mandating the preference of any religion over another by prohibiting laws requiring that public officials be of a certain faith. Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage and, on May 17, 2004, began issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. Same-sex marriage is an issue that came to the forefront of moral and legal debate in 1993, when couples in Hawaii filed a legal challenge to the state's refusal to issue them marriage licenses. When the majority prefers to retain laws that violate the constitutional rights of the minority, judges must strike down those laws regardless of their popularity just as the Supreme Court invalidated segregation laws that relegated black Americans to an inferior status to white Americans. We live in a country where the constitution guarantees equal protection of the law and prevents religion from dictating national policy. Supreme Court first ruled that marriage is a fundamental right in the 1942 case of Skinner v. (DeLeo, 7) If a couple married there were to decide to move to another state they would have few options if they intended to remain married as most states have adopted laws to deny recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. (Gerstmann, )What more could states do to interfere in the private lives and relationships of people than to dictate the gender of the person one may marry? How much clearer could it be that laws barring civil rights of a select group make them unequal? These cases are the major precedents that show that laws banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.
Common topics in this essay:
Marriage Amendment,
Supreme Court,
Marriage Debate,
Wayne Allard,
VI Section,
America Constitution,
Roman Catholic,
Bowers Hardwick,
Protection Clause,
President Clinton,
same-sex marriage,
gay lesbian,
same-sex couples,
marriage licenses,
equal protection,
federal marriage amendment,
federal marriage,
religious beliefs,
marriage amendment,
supreme court,
protection clause,
equal protection clause,
laws banning same-sex,
banning same-sex marriage,
gay lesbian couples,
|
Acceptance Essays
