I am accused of many things, one of which is that I am a liberal. (Oh heavens to Betsy a liberal) I am not a flaming liberal I am actually rather moderate in my stance on many political topics, however, I am do believe in standing up for what I believe in regardless of what others may think. I cannot believe how backwards our country still is and actually where it is headed and the current focus on what seemingly wants to send us back to an age of complete intolerance. Which brings me to today in current events. Today was day one of arguments in the Supreme Court to find California's atrocious Prop 8 and DOMA unconstitutional! Its disgusting that in this day and age that people are not allowed to marry if they so choose because of their gender. Which leads me to this wonderful post a friend of mine found and shared. It is too perfect and I had to share it here.
If you don't agree with my stance then you can just not read my post, this is my blog after all and I can post whatever I want :)
I didn't write this but I believe it is articulated very well:
Marriage is a legal contract, ergo it falls under the umbrella of equal protection.
First, there are certain "protected classes" laid out in the 14th
Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Two of them are race and gender. In
the Supreme Court case Loving v Virginia, SCOTUS ruled that,
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....
Now this case was based on race, BUT to support gay marriage, all you
have to do is change race to GENDER, another protected class. PLUS, the
14th Amendment has a little something called the "Privileges and
Immunities"clause. Which means, you can't deny the citizens, their
privileges, or immunities, based on those classes. In this case, that'd
be gender.
So, since marriage is a legal (that means law)
contract, that comes with PRIVILEGES, you can't deny citizens, without a
damn good, already been shown to exist, reason, from entering it based
on gender, among other things. So, if the state can't prove a reason, to
deny privileges to people based on gender, they can't make that
particular law. Now, put it together. If two gay people want to enter a
contract, and the state tells them they can't, because of the gender of
one of the parties, THAT'S A BIG NO NO. And YES, this is about gender
and not sexuality, that's why DOMA would allow a gay man and gay woman
to marry, but not two straight men.
Also, the logic that gay
people are free to marry, just as you are, i.e they're free to marry one
of the opposite sex, is the EXACT same defense that Virginia used in
their defense, again just turn gender to race.
The court ruled, AGAINST that logic.
Second, you have an implied right to privacy, mostly through the 9th
and 4th Amendments. In the SCOTUS case Lawrence v Texas, the court said
this...
The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest
which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of
the individual.
Third, AGAIN, marriage is a civil contract,
that comes with over 1,000 benefits granted by the state. Most of these
benefits deal with property, insurance, tax and probate law. Civil
unions, do NOT grant equivalent benefits. In order to enter a legal
contract, the parties have to have LEGAL CAPACITY FOR INFORMED CONSENT.
Furthermore, marriages are NOT religious, that's Holy Matrimony, which a
church can NEVER be forced to perform against its dogma, due to
protections in the 1st Amendment. This is why people can, and do, get
married any day without ever stepping foot in a church.
Also,
marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation. After all, we let people
have kids OUTSIDE of marriage, and NOT have kids while married.
Finally, there are very few limited reasons for the government to
discriminate in law, against one of these protected classes, and in
order to do so, the government has to pass the test of strict scrutiny,
which is that compelling state interest mentioned in Lawrence v Texas.
So....
The real question, those making the case for continuing the gender
based discrimination of DOMA is, what is that compelling state interest?
And before we start talking about marrying appliances, nephews, sheep,
or dead people...The reasonings as to why incest, beastiality, et. al
are illegal is tied in no way to either homosexuality or marriage.
That's why when we ceased to uphold "sodomy" laws they didn't magically
become legal.
But regardless, it's STILL not valid, because the
slippery slope doesn't apply to expansion of rights, it applies to the
contraction of rights. It's applicable to the government. Ergo, the
legal and logical way to apply the slippery slope to THIS situation
would be to say, "Allowing the GOVERNMENT the power to ban marriage
based on gender, which is a PROTECTED CLASS, could lead to the
GOVERNMENT claiming they have the power to ban marriage based on OTHER
PROTECTED CLASSES, like RACE or RELIGION (which by the way is a CHOICE,
just like I'm sure you're about to claim sexual orientation is)".
And then, ask yourself this...
Why doesn't STRAIGHT marriage lead to any of that?
And technically, the burden of proof is on those limiting rights, (the
anti-marriage equality folks), so you all should really be making the
case, not us.
Also, you have to look at the Full Faith and
Credit clause in the Constitution. That says that the legal matters of
one state must be upheld by other states. Right now, DOMA attempts to
circumvent that and allows states to NOT acknowledge the marriage
contracts of other states.
And NO, this isn't a states rights
issue, that's why previous marriage cases, i.e Loving, made it to SCOTUS
and was ruled on. Equal protection and the FFC are CONSTITUTIONAL
issues.
And OF COURSE, marriage isn't in the Constitution,
because the Constitution doesn't govern the actions of citizens. It
limits and enumerates the power of the government. The only time a
constitutional amendment applied to the behavior of citizens was
prohibition, and tell me how THAT worked out, please.
No comments:
Post a Comment