Same-Sex Marriage in the United States, Research Paper Example

Introduction

The Supreme Court recently ruled that all states must allow the licensing of same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriage licenses from other state. Marriage is defined as the union between a man and woman. However, it is the definition that is given by the society that is based on religious ground wherein the Church and the Bible only allow the union between a man and a woman. But there should be a clear separation of the church and the state. There is nowhere in the Constitution that forbids same sex marriages. In the same manner that there is nowhere in the Constitution that allows it. Yet, in order to know whether same sex marriage is a liberty that is inherent to every single human being, the court has to look on the context in which the nation’s forefathers framed the Constitution (Koppelman, 2006). It can be said that the issue on same sex marriage is a matter of moral questions and not of Constitutional enquiry. It might not seem right as far as the conservative societal perception on what marriage is supposed to be but it does not make it wrong either. The forefathers framed the Constitution in order to protect the inherent rights of every person and that includes same sex marriage and the courts, the congress and all the governmental bodies cannot override it. Should two heterosexual irresponsible people be banned from getting married? Should two heterosexual criminals not be allowed to get married? The society will not have a problem with that because the union is comprised of a man and a woman. Therefore, to prohibit 2 same sex people to get married is a form of discrimination based on sex and is clearly unconstitutional.

Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendments prohibits any state in its jurisdiction to deny a person the equal protection of the laws. This clause in the Fourteenth Amendments has become the tool for the courts to provide relief and invalidate any state law based on constitutionality and not morality. However, there is an absence of a clear and solid framework as to how the term equal protection should be construed. Hence, more often than not, a lot of governmental actions and policies are being challenged under the equal protection clause. In this lack of proper guidance and specific components of the equal protection clause, it can be said that if all else fails, the essentiality of civil rights should win. Just as in the case of Loving v. Virginia where freedom to marry regardless of race was opined to be am essential right of every person. If race is not a factor in allowing marriage so should gender (Cahill, 2004). Denying two people of the same sex the same equal treatment and reasoning is unconstitutional. Furthermore, in the case of Loving v. Virginia, it was stated that the denial of the right to marry based on race is unsupportable under the Constitution. Taking this context and applying it in marriage, it can be said that to deny same sex marriage is unsupportable on the basis of moral classifications. It is very clear that the laws of the country is not based on morality and religious beliefs but rather on the inherent freedom and rights on every person without interference from the church or the state except, of course, if exercised to commit a crime or to interfere with another person’s inherent rights.

Refusal under the 10^th Amendment

The refusal of some states and government workers (Kim Davies of Kentucky) in issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples seeking to get married is founded on the religious freedom that is under the 10^th Amendment (Snyder, 2006). The contention speaks of the right of the people to practice their religions even when accepted to work in the public sector. However, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the assumption of a job in the government sector comes with limitations on the practice of religion. Again, this is the separation of the church and the state. One cannot kill someone on the grounds of religious freedom and not be held accountable for violating the right to life of someone else. It is also important to note that 15 counties nation-wide have refused to issue these licenses citing the 10^th Amendment and, as in Kentucky, the 1st Amendment and religious freedom (Symposium, 2004).

Conclusion

It is important to note that the cases involving same sex marriage is not about two people of the same sex that want to get married and establish their family. These cases are more than that. As a matter of fact, the real case behind the issue on same sex marriage is whether or not allowing people of the same sex get married is an inherent right that is protected by the Constitution and that should be practiced. The rights that are embedded in the Constitution of the United States of America are protected from any forms of discrimination on the basis of religious preference, political background and sex among the many other protected variables. Hence, to say that the marriage of the same sex should not be allowed is a direct attack and violation of the Constitution. This is in the same context where the Supreme Court had stated that interracial marriage was also unconstitutional.

Works cited

Cahill, Sean, Same-Sex Marriage in the United States: Focus on the Facts. Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.

Koppelman, Andrew, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines. Yale University Press, 2006.

Snyder, R. Claire., Gay Marriage and Democracy: Equality for All. Rowman & Littlefield, 2006.

Symposium, “The Right to Marry: Making the Case to Go Forward,” Widener Law Journal, 13:691-877, 2004.