| Winner of the Written Category "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" By Jessica Negron - FL |
 |
|
| 2004 KarMel Scholarship Submission |
| KarMel Scholarship 2004 |
 |
|
| The Constitution of the United States guarantees all of its citizens equal rights. By not allowing homosexuals to partake in marriage, the government is infringing upon their right to marry, one they would have if they were heterosexual. Therefore, same-sex marriages should be legalized. As can be expected with any debated issue, there are two sides to the proverbial coin. The group that opposes same-sex marriages, composed predominantly of conservatives and religious fundamentalists, have a wide variety of arguments as to why same-sex marriages should remain illegal. However, this issue is not about people's opinions of homosexuals or their willingness to accept or condone their sexual orientation, this matter is a legal matter. Those who oppose same-sex marriage do so on the grounds of morality and often religious fundamentalism, but people's personal beliefs, moral values, and religious convictions, however strong they may be, are not legally justifiable reasons for denying homosexuals their constitutional right to equal protection and due process under the law. To understand the position that conservatives have taken, one must first understand their views of what marriage is and what it should not be allowed to become. According to the Vatican, marriage is between one man and one woman. It is a holy sacrament that the church has overseen throughout history. They claim that marriage is a commitment before God and since God views homosexuals as an abomination, they should not be allowed to marry. They also claim that marriage is a tradition that has no room for change. The Pope claims that homosexuals are a threat to family values and to sanction their unions would only further advance the decay of our society. First of all, those who claim marriage is an unchanged tradition are demonstrating their ignorance. Anthropologists say that the first marriages were arranged contracts that served the purpose of expanding territories and establishing economic liaisons. They had nothing to do with God or love, they were merely arranged marriages. Also, when marriages first emerged, the women were considered the property of their husbands. This is still true in many other countries. (Kaltunyk) Not only has marriage changed throughout the history of the world, it has also undergone many changes right here in America. When the U.S. was in its early years, women were still considered property and had no rights within a marriage, interracial marriage was illegal, and there were severe restrictions on divorce. Slowly throughout our history, we changed the meaning of marriage to accommodate our ever-changing society. It is not surprising that same-sex marriage is considered so outrageous, the same thing was thought when the case of Loving v. Virginia was being heard in the courts. This case concerned an interracial couple which had married in the District of Columbia and moved to Virginia where the marriage was illegal. Interracial marriages were considered unnatural, just like same-sex marriages are considered unnatural. The judge ruling on the case had this to say: Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix. (Bidstrup) The couple was sentenced to a year in prison, but would not be imprisoned if they agreed to leave Virginia. They filed a suit which argued that banning interracial marriage violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection and due process under law. They won their case at the Supreme Court level. The Supreme court said marriage is a right and although it is not expressly written in the Constitution, it is covered by the Fourteenth Amendment. This is what they had to say concerning their ruling: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma) ...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. (Bidstrup) After the ruling was handed down, all of the 16 states that still had laws that banned interracial marriage were forced to take them off the books. What does interracial marriage have to do with same sex-marriage? Well, the courts concluded that marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man." Since it is a basic civil right of all people, then homosexuals retain that right as well. They cannot be denied that right simply because they choose to marry someone of the same sex. Those opposed to same-sex marriage will argue that these laws were used for the purpose of furthering segregation and were brought about because of white supremacy and had nothing really to do with the institution of marriage itself, but the fact remains that marriage was classified as a basic civil right that all people are entitled to. Those who oppose gay marriage make many arguments, yet none of which would survive legal scrutiny. The most common argument posed is that marriage is for procreation purposes only. Lets for one moment assume that were true, what than should we do with couples who wish to marry, but one partner or both are sterile or the couple is too old to reproduce? Do we allow them to marry? What of couples who marry and simply choose not to have children, do we force them to divorce? Of course not! There are thousands of couples in this country who remain childless, whether by choice or sterility; thousands more who choose to adopt instead of reproduce naturally. We do not deprive them of their right to marry, so why deprive it of homosexuals? The reason is blatant discrimination. They are being denied their civil rights because of their sexual orientation. Also, article after article and book after book that I came across all argued that the majority is opposed to gay marriage. They claim that the extension of marriage rights to homosexuals should be put to public vote. I hear the mention of the word democracy in many of the arguments made on part of those opposed to homosexual marriage. Their claim that they should be able to vote on this matter and that majority should have the final say only further demonstrates their ignorance. This country was built as a republic not a democracy. The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. In contrast, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government." In a republic, the people have an indirect say in the government, they primarily depend on their elected officials to speak for them, make laws, and manage the country. By fact of history, no democracy has ever survived, they have all turned to social dictatorships. When Ben Franklin was asked what America was being formed as, he replied, "A Republic, if we're vigilant enough to preserve it." Our Founding Fathers came from a country that discriminated against them because they were the minority. They knew all too well how dangerous it would be to put the power in the hands of the majority. They wanted to do everything possible to ensure that the majority would not be able to infringe upon the minorities' rights. Another argument that is popular with the Christian fundamentalists and the conservatives is that gay relationships are immoral and would desecrate the sanctity of marriage. Whether homosexuality is moral or immoral is irrelevant to the case of gay marriage. The Separation of Church and State disallows the government to align itself with any religious institutions or make laws based on religious beliefs. The First Amendment does guarantee them the right to voice their opinions, but the First Amendment also permits people to be free from religion. For this to be true, for people to maintain their right to be free from religion, the government cannot allow religion and government to mix. They cannot base their laws or practices on religion and that is exactly what they are doing by denying homosexuals the right to marry on the premise that homosexuality is wrong. Besides, legalizing gay marriage would not affect the sanctity of marriage. Religious groups and individual churches reserve the right to turn any couple away which they believe should not be married. (McCuen, 98) For all intents and purposes, marriage is not controlled by the church, but by the state. The state issues marriage licenses, not the church. One does not have to marry within the church to be legally married, but one does have to receive a marriage license from the state, regardless of whether they married in the church or not. Marriage is about the legal status of a tax paying citizen before the world and the legal system, not before God. If that were true, then atheist and other religions which do not worship or believe in God would not be allowed to marry. In continuation, another reason I have heard to restrict marriage to heterosexuals only, which also happens be my personal favorite, is that granting homosexuals the right to marry would be granting them "special rights." "Special rights" are rights given to a group and are not available to other citizens. In the United States, there are certain inalienable rights granted to all. As the Declaration of Independence of the original thirteen colonies states, "among these [rights] are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Marriage is part of the pursuit of happiness. It is not a "special right," rather it is unalienable right that no two people wishing to marry should be denied. To do so is a direct infringement upon their right to pursue happiness. Letting only heterosexuals marry is granting heterosexuals "special rights" if one really seeks to be technical. They are the ones demanding that all others be excluded from marriage. Homosexuals only seek to be included in what they should not have been excluded from in the first place. As far as arguments go, the "slippery slope theory" is one of the more effective ones. The presupposition of this argument is that if homosexuals are granted the right to marry, then it is difficult to say where the line will be drawn. Who is to say that incest, bestiality, and polygamy will not soon follow suit? First of all, the requirements for marriage are that the couple not be closely related, they both be of legal age, and neither be part of another marriage. People seeking to legalize any of the above mentioned unions would be going against the very requirements of marriage and seeking to change it. Same-sex marriage does not seek to change any of those requirements, it only seeks to expand the rights to those who choose to marry within their gender. Until DOMA (Defense of Marriage ACT) passed, gender was not mentioned in the requirements. Conservatives will argue that legalizing same-sex marriages will give other groups momentum to fight for their right to marry, however, that is irrelevant and not a legally justifiable reason to deny homosexuals their rights. This is a desperate argument made by those who realize they have little or no legal support for their opposition of same-sex marriage. The only argument made in opposition of gay marriage that would hold any amount of weight in a court is that legalizing gay marriage in one state would force other states to acknowledge and eventually legalize it as well. This is due to the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State." If a couple marries in the state of Massachusetts, where the legislator is in progress of writing laws that would allow same-sex couples to marry, and they return to their respective state in which it is illegal, they can file a suit to have their marriage acknowledged. There is, however, the minor problem of the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) laws. Many states defines marriage as being between one man and one woman and would use that against anyone trying to gain recognition of their marriage. In that case, the state still retains the power to keep same-sex marriage illegal. However, that would only be viable in courts at the state level, if appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, it is possible that they will rule in favor of same-sex marriage on the basis that DOMA laws are discriminatory and unconstitutional. In that case, same-sex marriage will be legalized in all states. Conservatives argue that this would be a misuse of power on the part of the judicial system and violates the separation of powers among the three branches of government. It is true that it is the legislators job to make laws, but the Supreme Court would not be making laws in this case, they would be striking down those which are unconstitutional. That, in essence, is their job and they would not be violating any separation of powers by doing so. Needless to say, those opposed to gay marriage are not at all happy about the Massachusetts ruling. In fact, those in the legislator are scrambling for a way to avoid having to write laws which expressly allow homosexuals to attain the same civil marriage license that heterosexuals do. Unfortunately for them, the ruling handed down by the Superior Court of Massachusetts does not allow much room for compromise. Still, the conservatives seem unwilling to extend the right to marry to homosexuals. It must be so difficult for them to look upon us as equals, to acknowledge that they have been wrong all along in denying us equal rights. The notion that homosexuals are not reprobate perverts must be a hard one for the conservatives and fundamentalists to conceive. It must be equally difficult for them to allow others who are not like them to enjoy the same rights and privileges. To them, different has and always meant wrong and inferior. Writing laws to allow gay marriage would force a lot of people out of their comfort zones. The fear of allowing those who are different to lead normal lives has pushed many political conservatives to the extreme. The governor of Massachusetts and Senate majority leader Bill Frist are both backing a constitutional amendment that would once and for all take away the possibility of same-sex marriage. Unlike a law, an amendment to our constitution is permanent and would affect every state and override any presently existing laws. Vermont would no longer be able to offer civil unions and domestic partnerships could possibly be taken away as well. The process of getting an amendment ratified is an extensive one, but if it made it through the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the states, then it could mean the end of everything we have been fighting for. If that does not constitute abuse of power, then nothing does. It seems that ignorance is being allowed to run rampant in this country. This country was built by men who knew prejudice and persecution. They wanted this nation to be one that offered all of its citizens the same rights, the same privileges and the same opportunities. I cannot help but think that James Madison and the other framers of the Constitution would be extremely upset to see these modern day politicians trying to corrupt something as sacred as the Constitution by molding it to fit their own agenda. It is hard for those fighting for gay rights to stand strong under such unashamed bigotry, but still we manage. The question that many people ask themselves is why is it so important for gays to gain the right to marry. Why are they trying so hard and fighting so diligently to attain their rights? There are two main components to that answer. First of all, homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, fall in love. When someone falls in love and wants to spend the rest of their life with that special someone, the natural thing for them to do is marry. Homosexuals are being denied that natural sequence of events. Secondly, marriage provides many rights and benefits; an estimated 1,049 benefits at the federal level. Being in a committed homosexual relationship that is equivalent to a marriage but not recognized as so, presents many problems associated with medical insurance, taxes, child custody, and property ownership. (Galas, 38) Many conservatives will argue that rights can be obtained through civil unions such as the ones provided in Vermont or domestic partnerships such as the ones provided in the states of New York and California. The problems with them are that they are poor alternatives that only provide a small fraction of the rights that a conventional marriage would, they do not grant any of the 1,049 federal rights, and they are not recognized in any other state. Those opposed to same-sex marriage would have us believe that this is somehow an acceptable alternative to marriage, but to me it seems like a weak attempt at separate but equal laws that applied to blacks and whites during Jim Crow's time. So many homosexual couples who have been in committed long-term relationships for extended periods of time have had to build their lives around the instability of not being protected by the law. If one spouse were to end up in the hospital and were unable to communicate with the doctors, their partner could be kept from seeing them, even in the case of impending death. When one partner dies, the other may be left with nothing if there was no will left behind. The "blood" relatives of the deceased could easily come and claim all of the property and in some cases leave the partner with all of the bills and debt. During their life together, it would have been difficult or impossible to file joint taxes even though they live together and act as any married, heterosexual couple would. (Young) Those opposed to homosexual marriage make no attempt to look at it from any point of view other than their own. Conservatives do not seem to realize that they are fighting to keep homosexuals from living a conventional lifestyle. Marriage would provide stability to homosexual relationships and promote monogamy among them. Conservatives, instead of trying to include homosexuals in the conventional way of living, are attempting to further exclude them. It is severely hypocritical of them and is only serving the purpose of further ostracizing and isolating homosexuals from society. This makes it so much easier to view homosexuals as degenerate perverts. It seems to me that homosexuals are not the ones with an agenda here. However inequitable and biased people's opinions may be, the only arguments that have a bearing on the issue of gay marriage are the legal ones. The Declaration of Independence guarantees us the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Fourteenth Amendment states this: 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 law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Those few words guarantee us freedom from discrimination and the right to be looked upon as equal in the eyes of the law. It forbids individual states from making laws that will infringe upon the rights and privileges of its citizens. Denying homosexuals the right to marry is such an infringement. I implore those of you reading this to take the words of Eugene H. Nickerson, a U.S District Judge, into mind, "Hitler taught the world what could happen when the government began to target people not for what they had done but because of their status." If the U.S. government continues to allow this deliberate form of discrimination, then they will be no better than Hitler or those who sat silently and watched the Holocaust unfold before them. |
| Description of Submission: An essay argumenting in favor of gay marriages. Biography: Jessica is a sophomore attending Miami Dade Colege. She currently has a 4.0. She is looking to transfer to Univ. of Florida to study Politcal Science. In the future, she hopes to attend law school to become an attorney focusing on gay law. Why Karen and Melody Liked It: This year we received many submissions regarding gay marriages, but this essay thoroughly covered all the issues regarding gay marriages. It was organized and very well written. |
|
|
| Did you enjoy reading this essay? Then feel free to send a message to Jessica at: jmn71985@bellsouth.net |
| Did you enjoy reading this essay? Then feel free to send a message to Jessica at: jmn71985@bellsouth.net |