Same Sex Marriages and the U.S.Constitution - Term Paper Example

?Same Sex Marriages and the U.S. Constitution The debates for and against same sex marriage have long since become protests that are emotionally driven. Though some people may try to use the United States Constitution in their defense, they are oftentimes blinded by their emotions and misconstrue their information. Individuals and couples alike may have their own opinions in regard to same sex marriage, but what they have to remember is that, despite what they want or wish to happen, the United States Constitution has already outlined what is or is not able to take place. However, by turning marriage into something decided on by the law, the civil rights of people stand the risk of being violated. The civil rights of people are perhaps the largest part of the argument on the side of people that approve of same sex marriages. Civil rights allow all people to be treated equally in their political and social endeavors. By denying them the opportunity to marry whomever they choose, they are being denied their civil rights, based on the definition of civil rights. Equality is not being observed when a same sex couple is denied the chance to marry; therefore, the civil rights of people are not only being violated, but they are not being properly upheld. Furthermore, “the Constitution [...] may already have embedded in its wisdom, equal rights for all people, including gay people who want to get married (Badash).” The Constitution does not mention marriage directly, but it does point out that everyone should be treated equally. The Constitution of the United States does not define anything in regard to what marriage is, nor does it discuss the specifics of the people that are allowed to be married or those who are not. The only thing even remotely close to marriage in the U.S. Constitution is the concept of civil rights, which states the equality of all peoples (Gerstmann, pg. 44). The U.S. Constitution may be mum on the topic of marriage, but the introduction of federalism has given each individual state the ability to make their own constitutions. As such, each state is able to make their own sets of rules or amendments, ones that can go against what is already written in the U.S. Constitution, essentially overriding the original Constitution. This has prompted many state governments to put a ban on same sex marriage or to otherwise have these unions be called by something other than a marriage. These states are going against the civil rights of its people. In only a few cases, states have approved of same sex marriage. In 1996, former President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, which stated that the federal government defines a marriage as being between a man and a woman. While states could decide for themselves if they would recognize same sex unions, this law made it so that a same sex couple married legally in one state would not be recognized in a state that banned same sex marriages or did not recognize them as being lawful unions. This would cause many same sex marriages to be invalid should a married same sex couple decide to move. Again, the decision was still left up to the states, but Clinton made it clear where he and the federal government stood. The equality of people was, once again, shunted aside over someone else’s discomfort. The approval of same sex marriage took a different turn in 2003, during the case of Lawrence versus Texas, when the Supreme Court announced a new Constitution that would “prohibit state legislatures from treating homosexuality any differently than heterosexuality (Taylor).” This allowed marriage to find its way into the Constitution, seeming to favor more those that are for same sex marriages. By forbidding states to distinguish or make any notice of difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality, they were approving same sex marriage, as well as acknowledging the civil rights of Americans, which has always been the main component of rights when it comes to marriage. Also in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that no constitutional basis existed to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to become married, thus giving the state legislature six months to rewrite the laws of marriage in Massachusetts to include same-sex marriages, fully making them lawful. Although liberal Democrats used this as a reason to celebrate federalism and state sovereignty, conservative Republicans held a completely different view and decided the make use of the federal government to have states accept a common definition of marriage. Proposition 8 in California, an amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, was voted into law after California allowed gay couples to marry between June 16 and November 5 of 2008. The proposition was passed, voiding the marriages granted during June and November, which made gay marriage, once again, a huge political issue that desperately needed addressed. Even though many groups attempted to overturn the ruling, it has been held in place, but groups are still fighting against it, feeling that having their marriage licenses pulled went against their civil rights. Similarly, in February of 2011, President Barack Obama put an end to the Defense of Marriage Act, having deemed it to be unconstitutional. President Obama “concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subjected to a strict legal test intended to block unfair discrimination (Savage & Stolberg).” Though President Obama himself opposes same sex marriages, he understands that the presence of civil rights does not allow anyone in the government the right to determine who marriage should be saved for. He also understood that the Defense of Marriage Act went solely against gay rights, which, in turn, went against civil rights. The government took the act of marriage out of the hands of the people and placed it into the hands of politics. By doing this, the civil rights of Americans were ignored, being replaced with the opinions of government and legislative officials. The debates for and against same sex marriages may always be emotionally charged, even by those who try to set into law what others can or cannot do, but it needs to be remembered that the existence of civil rights allows equality for all people, regardless of their gender and regardless of the opinions of others who do not wish to uphold these civil rights. Works Cited Badash, David. "Does The U.S. Constitution Already Make Gay Marriage Legal?." The New Civil Rights Movement | A Journal Of News & Opinion On Gay Rights & Marriage Equality. N.p., 9 July 2009. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. . Gerstmann, Evan. Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print. Savage, Charlie, and Sheryl Stolberg. "Obama Shifts Course on Defense of Marriage Act." The New York Times. N.p., 23 Feb. 2011. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. . Taylor, Earl. "Marriage and the Constitution." National Center for Constitutional Studies. N.p., 8 Apr. 2004. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. . Read More