Constitutional Equality Upholds Gay Marriage
“Springfield: a place where everyone can marry—even dudes.” A topic so popular lately that even Patty Bouvier had to get in on the action, gay marriage has become one of the most controversial issues in today’s media and political agenda.
With the debate reaching the Washington State Supreme Court on March 8, thousands of American citizens’ rights will either be compromised or upheld, based on the verdict determined in a few months. With the main arguments centered on the Defense of Marriage Act and a simple 34-word phrase in the state constitution (Article 1, Section 12) that declares that no law will ever be approved which limits the equal rights of citizens, hundreds of Americans have their hopes set on legalizing gay marriage—including me.
With the Defense of Marriage Act passed in September 1996 under the Clinton administration, not only did marriage become clearly defined as a union between a man and a woman, but states were also given the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages certified in other states as well. In this most recent case where 19 couples are suing Washington State to have the act reversed, arguments focus on the notion that it violates the state constitution, that it clearly represents prejudices towards homosexuals, and that it violates the basic rights and freedoms of individuals. As Patricia Novotny (one of many attorneys representing the couples) argues, “We are here to ask merely that Washington fulfill the promise of liberty and equality for all of its citizens.”
Attorney Bill Collins of the state attorney general’s office disagrees, dismissing the idea that gays have the same rights as everyone else to marry. And according to him, “Whether there is a fundamental right depends on the history and customs of the culture.” Rather than focusing on concrete constitutional rights and freedoms, the entire foundation of his argument rests on the social context of the issue and his own ignorant opinions. It is clearly stated in the Washington State constitution that “no law shall be passed granting to any citizen ... privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.” So why are they even trying to dispute a statement asserting that all citizens have equal rights? Just because someone does not agree with a person’s decision does not give them the right to ignore or disregard the law and force their own judgments on others. You can argue that by legalizing gay marriage the rights of heterosexuals are being compromised, but how so? Their rights aren’t being violated; their opinions are being challenged of course, but how are their rights being limited? Legalizing gay marriage does not deny heterosexuals any of their civil liberties or privileges. The only thing it would be “violating” would be their beliefs, which might not be that bad of a thing. Maybe what people need to open up their minds is a little confrontation.
When Bush called for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in 2004, he argued that “marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.” Yet he fails to mention that the “all” he speaks of are only those who agree with him. By saying that it will weaken the “good” influence of society, he also implies that homosexuality is negative, harmful and damaging to society.
What he does not realize or even consider is that the people he’s condemning are good people, that they are humans like you and me who just want to have their rights recognized and who just want to fall in love. With phrases like “let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency” and “attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country,” Bush clearly exposes his own prejudices by referring to homosexuals as a whole as not decent, not kind, not good, and as serious offenders of society. His entire argument is contradictory; declaring that America is a “free society” and that “our government should respect every person” and that “the voice of the people must be heard,” Bush means only “the people” who agree with him and are on his side, which sounds all too familiar considering we are still killing thousands of Iraqi civilians and are on the verge of targeting Iran—but that’s a different story.
Collins also focuses on the idea that only heterosexual marriages provide children with the “optimal” environment to bring up children. OK. Why would it be an optimal environment? Because if there is a child involved in a gay marriage, homosexuality might actually be seen in a positive light? Because that child would be brought up more open-minded, less ignorant and judgmental? Yes, what a dreadful world this would become if ignorance is reduced!
According to the Seattle Times, attorneys defending the marriage law also argue that “the state has a rational reason for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, because the state has an interest in regulating relationships that produce children.” So, does that mean heterosexual couples who choose not to have kids should be, what, sentenced to a life time of Chinese water torture by the state?
Concerning the issue of religion, as Valerie Tibbett, one of 11 couples who fought the state with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington in 2004, states, “We hope to have an end to religious values overriding civil liberties. When one group uses its numbers and religious dogma to take rights away from the rest of us, it’s not the right thing.”
As Alison Campbell, a supporter of legalizing gay marriage noted, “I support gay marriage for several reasons. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. I don’t think the institution of marriage, which I see as a religious ideal, should be put upon everyone in the country. I was raised Catholic and I believe the strongest messages in the Bible are tolerance, acceptance and compassion, not judgment.”
Besides, if people are so homophobic and concerned about the “serious consequences” of legalizing gay marriage, they might as well introduce a case against the 10 male homosexual penguins at the Bremerhaven Zoo. I wouldn’t be surprised.
This is a very good op-ed piece I came across. It is written by
With the debate reaching the Washington State Supreme Court on March 8, thousands of American citizens’ rights will either be compromised or upheld, based on the verdict determined in a few months. With the main arguments centered on the Defense of Marriage Act and a simple 34-word phrase in the state constitution (Article 1, Section 12) that declares that no law will ever be approved which limits the equal rights of citizens, hundreds of Americans have their hopes set on legalizing gay marriage—including me.
With the Defense of Marriage Act passed in September 1996 under the Clinton administration, not only did marriage become clearly defined as a union between a man and a woman, but states were also given the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages certified in other states as well. In this most recent case where 19 couples are suing Washington State to have the act reversed, arguments focus on the notion that it violates the state constitution, that it clearly represents prejudices towards homosexuals, and that it violates the basic rights and freedoms of individuals. As Patricia Novotny (one of many attorneys representing the couples) argues, “We are here to ask merely that Washington fulfill the promise of liberty and equality for all of its citizens.”
Attorney Bill Collins of the state attorney general’s office disagrees, dismissing the idea that gays have the same rights as everyone else to marry. And according to him, “Whether there is a fundamental right depends on the history and customs of the culture.” Rather than focusing on concrete constitutional rights and freedoms, the entire foundation of his argument rests on the social context of the issue and his own ignorant opinions. It is clearly stated in the Washington State constitution that “no law shall be passed granting to any citizen ... privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.” So why are they even trying to dispute a statement asserting that all citizens have equal rights? Just because someone does not agree with a person’s decision does not give them the right to ignore or disregard the law and force their own judgments on others. You can argue that by legalizing gay marriage the rights of heterosexuals are being compromised, but how so? Their rights aren’t being violated; their opinions are being challenged of course, but how are their rights being limited? Legalizing gay marriage does not deny heterosexuals any of their civil liberties or privileges. The only thing it would be “violating” would be their beliefs, which might not be that bad of a thing. Maybe what people need to open up their minds is a little confrontation.
When Bush called for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in 2004, he argued that “marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.” Yet he fails to mention that the “all” he speaks of are only those who agree with him. By saying that it will weaken the “good” influence of society, he also implies that homosexuality is negative, harmful and damaging to society.
What he does not realize or even consider is that the people he’s condemning are good people, that they are humans like you and me who just want to have their rights recognized and who just want to fall in love. With phrases like “let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency” and “attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country,” Bush clearly exposes his own prejudices by referring to homosexuals as a whole as not decent, not kind, not good, and as serious offenders of society. His entire argument is contradictory; declaring that America is a “free society” and that “our government should respect every person” and that “the voice of the people must be heard,” Bush means only “the people” who agree with him and are on his side, which sounds all too familiar considering we are still killing thousands of Iraqi civilians and are on the verge of targeting Iran—but that’s a different story.
Collins also focuses on the idea that only heterosexual marriages provide children with the “optimal” environment to bring up children. OK. Why would it be an optimal environment? Because if there is a child involved in a gay marriage, homosexuality might actually be seen in a positive light? Because that child would be brought up more open-minded, less ignorant and judgmental? Yes, what a dreadful world this would become if ignorance is reduced!
According to the Seattle Times, attorneys defending the marriage law also argue that “the state has a rational reason for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, because the state has an interest in regulating relationships that produce children.” So, does that mean heterosexual couples who choose not to have kids should be, what, sentenced to a life time of Chinese water torture by the state?
Concerning the issue of religion, as Valerie Tibbett, one of 11 couples who fought the state with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington in 2004, states, “We hope to have an end to religious values overriding civil liberties. When one group uses its numbers and religious dogma to take rights away from the rest of us, it’s not the right thing.”
As Alison Campbell, a supporter of legalizing gay marriage noted, “I support gay marriage for several reasons. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. I don’t think the institution of marriage, which I see as a religious ideal, should be put upon everyone in the country. I was raised Catholic and I believe the strongest messages in the Bible are tolerance, acceptance and compassion, not judgment.”
Besides, if people are so homophobic and concerned about the “serious consequences” of legalizing gay marriage, they might as well introduce a case against the 10 male homosexual penguins at the Bremerhaven Zoo. I wouldn’t be surprised.
This is a very good op-ed piece I came across. It is written by
This entry was posted
on Sunday, April 03, 2005 at 10:30 PM.
Want to discuss? Leave a comment below.
» Post a Comment