by Thomas Fischer
During the 19th century, African Americans were not permitted to marry in some places in the United States. After the Civil War, and the abolition of slavery, marriage became more comprehensively regarded as a contract between two consenting adults of the same race and of opposite gender. In the late 1960s a change was made to this and mixed-race couples were permitted to marry thus creating the perception of marriage as a contact between two consenting adults of the opposite sex. This latest change was the result of a United States Supreme Court ruling in the case of Loving v Virginia. In this ruling Chief Justice Warren maintained that “This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment” (findlaw.com). In each of these instances of change, the change occurred as a result of a group of people requesting the modification of the law.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the civil rights of all citizens of the United States and promises that the government will not create laws that infringe upon the rights of individuals. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 1868). This should include couples of the same sex the right to marry and to have their marriage recognized by the State as well as the Federal Government.
In recent years a trend has been growing where same-sex couples desire to have the same rights and benefits accorded to married opposite sex couples. Same-Sex Marriage has been in the news nearly as much as the war in Iraq and legal action along with public outcry has created an enormous debate in the United States over whether or not to legalize Same-Sex Marriage. The primary argument against Same-Sex Marriage is that it is immoral and that it goes against the religious and secular traditions of marriage. Furthermore the intent of marriage is to join two people, one man and one woman, together so that they may raise children.
Additionally the issue of whether or not same sex couples should receive the same recognition, rights, obligations and privileges as couples joined in traditional marriage is also a source of great contention. Advocates for same sex couples have brought litigations against the governments of states for not recognizing their civil rights as couples and this is the basis for change as opposed to arguing moral and philosophical differences.
Recently the Massachusetts Supreme Court determined, in the case of Goodrich v Department of Community Health, that banning gay marriage in that state was unconstitutional and “gave the Massachusetts state Legislature six months to rewrite the state’s marriage laws for the benefit of gay couples.” (cnn.com,2004). Until this happened there was no acknowledgement of Same-Sex Marriage in North America. Civil Unions, which are similar to marriage, are acknowledged in the state of Vermont as well as three provinces in Canada, but they are not regarded exactly the same as a marriage between one man and one woman and they are not recognized by the federal government as a marriage.
“Denying equal access to marriage deprives LGBT people of critical rights, protections and responsibilities and violates our nation’s fundamental guarantee of equality for everyone.” (Lambda Legal, 1997-2004). This is the premise being used by Lambda Legal to promote the change of laws so that they recognize Same-Sex Marriages. Lambda Legal’s mission statement advances this purpose. “Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, the transgendered, and people with HIV and AIDS through impact litigation, education and public policy work.” (Lambda Legal, 1997-2004).
The United States of America was founded on the principle that all people are created equally and that they are entitled to basic human rights. Denying recognition of Same-Sex Marriage would go against the fundamentals upon which this country is based. This should include the right to same-sex marriage. Same-Sex Marriage should not be banned because all citizens of this country should be entitled, the same equal rights and protections provided by the constitution of the United States. It should furthermore not be banned based on moral judgments or with regard to historical precedence. Change does not occur overnight and it may take time for the country to recognize Same-Sex Marriage as it does traditional marriage, but it is a change that should be made.
Works Cited
Findlaw.com. (1967, June 12). U.S. Supreme Court-Loving v Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Retrieved July 7, 2004, from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=1
Fourteenth ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. (1868, July 9). Retrieved July 5, 2004 from the World Wide Web at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14 .
Lambda Legal (1997-2004). Retrieved July 4, 2004 from the World Wide Web at http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/about.
CNN.com. (2004,February 4). Massachusetts Court Rules Ban on Gay Marriage Unconstitutional. CNN.com Law Center. Retrieved July 7, 2004, from http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/