This is an excellent comment posted on the Olympian (see link below):
CherokeeNative
There are currently three articles regarding gay-marriage being commented on in the O - and in each one, the opponents of gay marriage are condeming the passage of the gay marriage bill as being against their religious beliefs. No matter how many times it is pointed out that civil marriage is a legal status granted by the state and has nothing to do with religious marriage, the debate over the opponents' arguments eventually lead back to religion. This is exactly why the gay marriage bill should never be given to the citizens of Washington to vote on - because the opponents cannot set aside their faith and look at the issue strictly from a legal standpoint under the eyes of the state. Thus, even if the gay marriage issue is finally brought to vote of "the people" it will not end there - it will end up in the courts, and although it will prolong the ultimate, gay marrige will eventually become legal not only in the state of Washington, but the entire United States.
The right to marry has been recognized by the US Supreme Court as a fundamental right under the United States Constitution. Government has no business intruding in our personal lives. A Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages would write discrimination into the Constitution.
More importantly, we do not democratically decide on fundamental rights. The US Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is indeed a fundamental right. Imagine if we could democratically vote on whether to abide by one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. What would be the point of having the Bill of Rights at all if we could just vote to ignore it? The founders of the United States believed that people have inalienable rights that cannot be taken away or brought to a vote. These rights are enshrined in the Constitution and its Amendments. Amond them, we find Equal Protection under the law. Equal protection is non-negotiable without a Constitutional Amendment. Other civil rights issues have been unpopular, but ultimately rpevailed by virtue of the unconstitutionality of suppressing them. Most recently, the black civil rights movement, desegregation of public schools, and permission of inter-racial marriages were all unpopular ideas at the time, but prevailed because they were right, not because they were popular.
Thus far, federal courts have ruled that bans on gay marriage cannot withstand the scrutiny of the Equal Protection Clause. Vaughn R. Walker, then Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in ruling that Proposition 8 violated the equal protection and due process rights of gay and lesbian couples in California, stated: Proposition 8 cannot survive any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest."
It is only a matter of time until the US Supreme Court resolves this debate by holding that gay marriage is a fundamental right under the United States Constitution. It is unfortunate that those citizens of Washington who oppose gay marriage cannot recognize this fundamental right as a separate civil right from their religious traditions and beliefs.
The right to marry has been recognized by the US Supreme Court as a fundamental right under the United States Constitution. Government has no business intruding in our personal lives. A Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages would write discrimination into the Constitution.
More importantly, we do not democratically decide on fundamental rights. The US Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is indeed a fundamental right. Imagine if we could democratically vote on whether to abide by one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. What would be the point of having the Bill of Rights at all if we could just vote to ignore it? The founders of the United States believed that people have inalienable rights that cannot be taken away or brought to a vote. These rights are enshrined in the Constitution and its Amendments. Amond them, we find Equal Protection under the law. Equal protection is non-negotiable without a Constitutional Amendment. Other civil rights issues have been unpopular, but ultimately rpevailed by virtue of the unconstitutionality of suppressing them. Most recently, the black civil rights movement, desegregation of public schools, and permission of inter-racial marriages were all unpopular ideas at the time, but prevailed because they were right, not because they were popular.
Thus far, federal courts have ruled that bans on gay marriage cannot withstand the scrutiny of the Equal Protection Clause. Vaughn R. Walker, then Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in ruling that Proposition 8 violated the equal protection and due process rights of gay and lesbian couples in California, stated: Proposition 8 cannot survive any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest."
It is only a matter of time until the US Supreme Court resolves this debate by holding that gay marriage is a fundamental right under the United States Constitution. It is unfortunate that those citizens of Washington who oppose gay marriage cannot recognize this fundamental right as a separate civil right from their religious traditions and beliefs.
http://www.theolympian.com/2012/02/01/1973174/hope-history-on-line-with-gay.html#comment-428606109
Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/02/01/1973410/senate-votes-28-21-to-legalize.html#comment-428650339#storylink=cpy
...........................................................
Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/02/01/1973410/senate-votes-28-21-to-legalize.html#comment-428650339#storylink=cpy
No comments:
Post a Comment