Is Gay Marriage Against The Constitution? For Warrior Spirit-Question Answered   Author:  15070  Category:(Debate) Created:(7/11/2003 10:42:00 PM) This post has been Viewed (8203 times) Supporting Gay Marriage by Cierra Bolin "Whenever a society wants to demonize a particular group, it prohibits them from marrying." (California assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl on state governments legislating against gay marriages) Among the most important, controversial issues in America today is the issue of gay marriage. A Hawaii court recently ruled that the government must show "compelling state interest" for denying same-sex couples the right to marry, and the possibility of equal access to marriage is becoming greater every year (National Organization for Women). The only opposition to allowing couples of the same sex to marry stems from bias and is a form of discrimination. Many feel that gay marriage is a disgusting prospect. These people are victims of the "ew!" factor. This mysterious idea of romance between people of the same sex "grosses them out", and they let this disgust affect their treatment of people who experience this romance. However, the liberties of American citizens should be more important than any outside party's reaction of "ew!". Therefore, same-sex partners should be allowed to marry. The opposition asserts that allowing same-sex marriages should not be legal on the basis that the bible condemns homosexuality, and our Christian-centered society should support the morals of the majority. Several, including James Wilson, have argued against gay marriage using a biblical verse from Leviticus as evidence, in which sex between men is forbidden. The bible presents execution as a just punishment (Wilson 302). This may have been acceptable during biblical times, but it is no longer legal for religion to dictate law. While religion may provide a certain community with an attitude towards homosexuality, this community has no right to impose their beliefs on others. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti). The United States Government must remain impartial to all religious groups. This applies also to laws or policies which stem from the religious ideas of lawmakers. Therefore, the religious policies and moralities of one group should not have legal advantages over another. This is applicable to gay marriage because when someone is quoting from the bible in order to convince someone to enforce their religious ideas, those involved in the issue at hard are at the mercy of a religion that they do not necessarily believe in. The argument that the bible condemns homosexuality and therefore gay marriage should not be allowed is void. It brings religion into an area where it has no relevance, and where it's influence would be unconstitutional. The opposition suggests that same-sex marriage should not be allowed because, being of the same sex, these partners are unable to fulfill the principal function of marriage- creating a family. Chuck Morse argues against gay marriage and says that, "Homosexual behavior contradicts natural law; a simple observation of the nature of the male and female anatomy provides the necessary proof" (Morse). He is arguing that inability to produce offspring should disqualify an individual from legal marriage. If we follow the oppositions' "anatomical possibility" theory, then who's to say that this line of logic applies only to homosexuals? Any post-menopausal woman or sterile man should be scoffed at for applying for marriage, and told that their desire to marry was unnatural. Andrew Sullivan illustrates this best when he says, "No civil marriage license is granted on the condition that the couple bear children; and the marriage is no less legal and no less defensible if it remains childless" (Sullivan 299). Marriages are not granted after the couple can prove they can physically bear children. The argument that marriage must be between a man and a woman on the basis of human anatomy is invalid. If you are going to use the standard that children must be at least a possible fruit of the union, then that rule must be applied to all people applying for marriage. Partners of the same sex must be allowed to marry, as the United States of America was founded on the basic of civil rights for all. The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are...endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html). Webster's clarifies the meaning of the word liberty as "a particular right, freedom, etc." (Webster's 348). It also gives reference to another definition stating they are "rights...without hindrance except in the interests of public welfare" (Webster's 114). Liberty is taken to mean rights which are granted to everyone, unless they are harmful to the public welfare. Public welfare, not the sensibilities of the public. And the sensibilities of the public is really the only thing that stands to be harmed in the marriage of same-sex couples. And since this is not harmful to the public welfare, the right to marry anyone one chooses is included in the rights the United States of America stated were "self-evident" and "unalienable" in its Declaration of Independence. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is a blatant act of discrimination and sexism. Andrew Sullivan states, "So long as intelligent people understand that homosexuals are emotionally and sexually attracted to the same sex as heterosexuals are to the opposite sex, then there is no human reason on earth why [marriage] should be granted to one group and not the other" (Sullivan 57). Gay marriage must be allowed in order to retain the democratic nature of this country. While the government as a whole may not approve of a marriage between members of the same sex, they have no right to impose their sense of morality on these couples. Essentially, any instance where a gay couple is denied something because they are a gay couple, is discrimination. In 1996, a Hawaii court ruled that refusing marriage licenses to same-sex couples is sex discrimination that violates the Hawaii constitution (National Organization for Women). Their line of logic was that if a man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry a woman, then that was sex discrimination. As sex discrimination is against constitutional law, then the governments act of denying same-sex marriage is clearly unconstitutional. In closing, gay marriage should, and will, become legalized. American history is speckled with the stories of different groups fighting for their rights. The country was fought for and founded opon the idea of religious rights for all people, and we currently enjoy these rights. Women are enjoying the right to vote and run for office. Men and women of all racial backgrounds can vote and run for office. Just recently, the right to marry outside of your race was won. Soon, Americans will be allowed to be legally married to whomever they have fallen in love with, sex and gender notwithstanding. A country full of so much diversity cannot go on for so long without realizing their lack of compassion and empathy. If this policy of lawful discrimination is allowed to continue, then the liberty and freedom this country was founded upon have been lost. http://www.glbthistoryday.com/opinion.htm You can join Unsolved Mysteries and post your own mysteries or interesting stories for the world to read and respond to Click here Scroll all the way down to read replies. Show all stories by   Author:  15070 ( Click here ) Spring is coming