Friday, March 29, 2013

Blog 5 on National Government towards gay marriage

Is Gay Marriage UnconstitutionalMany Americans are talking about one of the most controversial topics this county has seen in years. This controversial topic affects all Americans one way or another whether we choose to admit it or not, whether you have a friend that is gay, or a family member, or simply just know of someone that is gay. Many Americans are torn with the huge dilemma in determining which side of the fence they actually stand on, I for one am one of them. It has been really fascinating to watch history in the making, to be able to witness our nation’s highest form of government, the Supreme Court take on this controversial topic. I am going to give evidence why I think Gay marriage is not unconstitutional. As we learned in class, powers of the federal government are limited to those powers either granted to it by the Constitution or powers that are prohibited by the Constitution as being state powers, and that all other powers were reserved to the states and to the people. This is stated in the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The States currently hold the power of marriage. According to Ivan Hoffman, The laws of one state regulating marriage are entitled to the full faith and credit in all other states. One court case example that defines marriage can be In Loving vs. Virgina In 1967, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a Virginia state law prohibited parties of different races from marrying (and similar laws in 15 other states) was unconstitutional as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. Virginia had a public policy that was embodied in the said statute. However, in that case, the Court stated: The Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. And the Court went on to say: There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.And finally the Court stated: These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Although this case is based on racial inequality, it does give great clarification on some of the freedoms that our Constitution provides in regards to marriage, Loving was being deprived of liberty and freedom as a free American to not be allowed to marry, and the court recognized it, but Some considerable events in regards to the Loving case which prompted the court’s decision to grant separate races to be able to marry would be what was currently going on in the 60’s at the time for African American’s, ie; Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Medgar Evers, all took part in shifting America’s attitude towards a more racially equal country. So it was depriving of one’s freedom and liberty to deny marriage of separate races, If under our Constitution we are given the freedom of choice to marry, I believe that freedom should be upheld to its fullest, thus granting same sex couples to be allowed to marry, but I do not think that this should become a federal issue, I don’t think there is enough events that have taken place yet to shift our nation to becoming more equally accepting of same sex couples, although it is looking like it is headed towards that direction, I don’t believe now is the time.

2 comments:

  1. I love that you referred to Loving v Virginia! What a passionate article. Thanks for sharing!

    ReplyDelete