|
Volume CXXXIII, Number 10 |
 |
Massachusett's gay marriage ruling
ALEXANDER REED
CONTRIBUTOR
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in what was perhaps the most important and far-reaching court decision regarding gay marriage since Vermont's 1999 recognition of civil unions, struck down on Tuesday an "unconstitutional" ban on same-sex marriages.
This 4-3 court decision gave the state legislature 180 days to rewrite existing laws to benefit same-sex couples. "We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Margaret Marshall.
This is indeed an issue which challenges not only our legal traditions, but our long-held social beliefs and practices. Many religious conservatives argue that homosexuality is a sin, and thus vehemently oppose gay marriage.
Others, mainly secular leftists, believe on constitutional grounds that same-sex marriages should be legalized, drawing upon many of the same arguments of equality which won the civil rights movement. This legal battle, which has been fought for the past decade on many different levels and in many different forms, is not exclusive to America. Other socially progressive nations, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada ,have legalized same-sex marriage. Thus, the underlying question regarding this issue is whether or not we, as the most prosperous and progressive country in the world, are willing to sail with the prevailing social winds and abolish this final remnant of legal social discrimination.
The answer is yes. This summer has seen the fastest move toward mainstream acceptance of gays in America ever. As evident with everything from the Supreme Court striking down a Texas sodomy law to the success of Bravo's TV series "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," at no other time in American history have homosexuals been so close to achieving their goal of social acceptance-as symbolized by the legal right to marry. This is not to say the path toward gay marriage is unobstructed. Much opposition exists, especially among evangelical Christians and social conservatives who constitute a mainstream in rural America. Despite this formidable opposition, many liberals in state governments continue to fight for the passage of a full gay-marriage provision, while conservative opponents have fought with the same vigor for a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. The latter argument is erroneous and is not only un-American, but unconstitutional.
Of all the American principles of freedom embodied in the Constitution, perhaps the most important is the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which dictates that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Since heterosexual couples have the legal right to wed and enjoy such privileges as joint tax provisions and inheritances, homosexual couples should, according to the Constitution, be able to wed as well.
This is not the case, and instead opponents of gay marriage use the semi-religious and unabashedly backward-looking argument that legally recognizing gay marriage would overturn the precedents of thousands of years of marriage being open exclusively to a single man and woman.
Furthermore, opponents argue that allowing full gay marriage in one state would pave the way for people engaged in alternative lifestyles, such as polygamy, to seek marriage recognition under Article Four of the Constitution, which states that "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
Instead of officially (and illegally) establishing the Judeo-Christian standard regarding marriage, the federal and state governments should recognize that not every US citizen's religious and social beliefs fall under that religious ideology. Thus, in order to provide equal legal protection to all Americans, regardless of religion or sexual orientation, the federal government must start by legalizing, on a state-wide basis, same-sex marriages.
Some believe that the founding fathers would be outraged if they were here to experience the debate surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage. However, it is important to accept that the America of Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison did not yet embody their vision of liberty and social equality. In that era, America had yet to rid itself of the specters of slavery, Jim Crowe segregation laws, and the lack of women's rights. In this era, however, every American, whether he/she is black, white, or somewhere in between, no longer must endure legal discrimination-with the exception of homosexuals wishing to wed. This problem must be corrected not only for the sake of homosexuals, but all patriotic Americans who believe in the Constitution. Hopefully, Tuesday's court decision will open the door for this much-needed change.
For information on sending a letter to the editor, please click here.
|
FastCounter by bCentral |