Why I say no to prop 8
With many of the great triumphs that occurred on election day, a pathetic embarrassment transpired as well. In California, Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, was passed by significant margins and has caused much social tension. For those of you who say you are against gay marriage to protect the sanctity of marriage, I will say to you that I am for gay marriage to protect my constitution. The 14th amendment states:
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.
Gay people are citizens of the United States and can never be denied the rights that every other american enjoys.
Staunch conservatives and evangelists will tell you that they are against gay marriage to protect the sanctity of marriage as defined in the bible between a man and a woman. They say that if gays marry, then there is nothing to prevent a man from asking to marry let’s say a chicken or his pet dog, Morty. It’s hard to even acknowledge the other argument on a logical, let alone constitutional level without wanting to simply vomit.
Now aside from the equal protection of rights that all citizens, including gays, are guaranteed under the 14th amendment, there is a fundamental reason why the those who are against gay marriage are wrong on a constitutional level. The establishment clause, as interpreted under the 1st amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first line of our first amendment of the constitution says very clearly that no law can be made with any influence of religion. Now, if this is written into law, doesn’t that completely destroy the anti-gay argument of sanctity of marriage? How can anyone possibly argue on a constitutional level that gays don’t deserve the right to marry because the bible says so? Now, onto the argument of gay marriage leading to bestiality. I am not gay, but I know many people who are; and for those of you who think gay people are somehow sexual deviants or perverts let me just say that that is a bigoted theory and a horribly inaccurate one. Gay people are the same as straight people except for the fact that they happen to be attracted to the same sex. Giving them the right to marry won’t give a free pass to bestiality and it’s hard for me to simply not accost people who make this argument.
The fact that no court can make a clear ruling on this out of fear of conservative ideology pays homage to the notion that our judicial system is in deep trouble. I am not a constitutional scholar, although I have taken college courses on it, but I don’t think it’s hard for anyone to analyze such clear cut texts such as the establishment clause and equal protection clause.
While I understand why Obama could not support gay marriage in the election out of fear that it would become this election’s wedge issue, I hope he changes tone now that he has been elected to office.
If I am missing something from the opposing argument, feel free to let me know.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Look at London’s laws. They take the word “Marriage” out of legal documents and such, leaving the term to religious ceremonies, where it started and belongs.
November 29th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Jon: I believe it’s pretty simple what you are missing: this is democracy. If the folks want to make change they have the ballot box, not an activist court with, at best, questionable motives. So, for those that don’t like the outcome of P8 I suggest they do what we Republicans are going to do with the Presidential election outcome we don’t like: (1) Accept that we lost; (2) Try again to get our guys elected in 2012; (3) Be thankful that no one except a few loonie gay supporters feel that they can terrorize the winners into changing their positions.
November 29th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Sir, I respect your opinion. But you are wrong. What’s always popular doesn’t coincide with what’s constitutional. Slavery was legal until the passage of the 13th amendment. Would you argue that it is constitutional? Abolitionism was pretty unpopular until the 1850′s. Women didn’t have the vote until 1920 and the passage of the amendment was by the slimmest of margins. Would you argue because universal suffrage was unpopular that women before 1920 didn’t deserve the right to vote? Of course not. If what was popular was made into law neither of us would pay taxes and blacks and women most likely wouldn’t have the vote (at least in the south). That is specifically why we have a constitution–so the rights of a popular mob don’t impede on the natural rights of a smaller minority.
If your history serves you well, the main reason the president and senate weren’t directly elected by the people was because the framers of the constitution feared that the rights of unpopular parties would be infringed upon. This is a democracy that’s ruled by a constitution–not mob rule. Everyone, including gays, have natural rights wether others accept it or not.
November 29th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Bottom line: A law isn’t evoked through popularity. It is erected through constitutionality–two completely separate things.
November 30th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
it’s an abhorrent position to be against gay marriage, but to say the courts support it in fear of conservative backlash is simply ignorant. the courts support the passing of prop 8 because the voters voted for it…that’s how democracy works, whether that democracy in this case is morally corrupt as you say, is an entirely different story.
November 30th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Forgive me for getting a little irked, but popular rule in now way affects how courts preside over cases. Supreme Court justices serve lifetime terms so that “democracy” as you refer to it or popular rule can’t affect them. This is an issue of court, not what people want. I thought I made this clear in my last comment but I obviously explained it poorly. If my statement about a conservative backlash is ignorant, than both of your statements on popular rule affecting the courts is just sheer stupidity. The complete purpose of the courts is to have a body protect the rights of all americans. Let me rephrase that backlash statement. What I mean by that is that many of todays appeallate judges and supreme court judges were appointed over thirty years ago and simply have an archaic perspective. We have them precisely so that mob rule doesn’t take effect and a majority of people don’t abuse a minority.
It doesn’t matter what people want it matters what the constitution says. Would you argue that if a hypothetically conservative state wanted to pass a law saying blacks couldn’t vote, that because it was popular it would be constitutional? Of course not. Courts are set up to keep popular opinion in check with what the constitution says.
November 30th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Find me one lawyer who thinks that the supreme court makes decisions based on popular opinion. The very first supreme court case–Marbury V. Madison was highly controversial and highly unpopular. Many supreme court cases are unpopular but the courts deem them so because they ANSWER TO THE CONSTITUTION, NOT WHAT’S POPULAR. WHAT’S POPULAR ISN’T ALWAYS CONSTITUTIONAL.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:50 am
While the court isn’t necessarily guided by public opinion, the social climate often dictates how the court will rule on a given matter. We have to remember that while constitutionality is the ultimate goal, the supreme court justices are merely human, with human biases. The law can be twisted to fit those biases. For instance, let’s say CA’s Prop. 8 is challenged on Equal Protection grounds, and on the grounds that the proposition was in fact a full blown ‘amendment’ (requiring a legislative vote) rather than a mere ‘modification’.
The court can take up the issue but has complete discretion to completely ignore the equal protection issue and overturn the law on the technicality, making for MUCH weaker legal precedent. I guarantee that when Prop 8 is overturned it will not be on equal protection grounds; it would be too much too soon for the public at large to be able to comprehend, and the court knows this. If you watch the court change over generations, it’s shifts are gradual, and very rarely so drastic as those that arose out of the civil rights movement.
In short, the constitution is the ultimate authority, but it is unrealistic to believe that judges are unswayed by the social climate of the era in which they operate.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Durbanland, you hold a popular misconception about our form of government in the United States. We do not have a democracy. We have a constitutional democracy. The words are similiar but the concept is completely different.
This is not splitting hairs. Ancient Athens was a democracy. In Athens, if 51% of the people didn’t like you and wanted you to be stoned to death, it would happen. That’s it, no constitution, no bill of rights.
Fortunately we do not have a democracy for the specific reason of protecting the rights of the minority.
I am distraught over the future of this country when such a large majority of its citizens don’t even know what form of government we have.
December 4th, 2008 at 7:36 am
M.K Meyer– I completely agree with you and I am not naiive enough to think that courts rule on the constitution like robots. I’m merely stating how overwhelming the constitutional support is for equal rights and gay marriage. The courts have all always had that bias but fortunately they come around after enough time. Dred Scott was definitely a biased decision but fortunately it was overturned after the Civil War.
Vicky-It’s nice to see someone out there who reads the constitution and understands that it can’t be destroyed based on false claims of morality and religious ideology.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Re: “I am distraught over the future of this country when such a large majority of its citizens don’t even know what form of government we have.”
Our schools don’t sufficiently teach either history or civics anymore…not enough money and not enough people who seem to care. Why don’t peoplel care? Because they weren’t taught it, or thought they needed it, when they were in school and so the vicious cycle and downward spiral begins. I posted about this in October in my Blog, Dy’s Mind’s Eye: http://dysmindseye.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/knowledge-is-power/
Without knowledge and the tools to use it, we are all sittin ducks and doomed to repeat mistakes and create huge new ones.
The Constitution is our safety net, but if we don’t, as a nation, understand it’s use and necessity, I fear for the eventual future of that safety net.
December 8th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
First and foremost the validity of one’s claims is inherently reliable through how one expresses themselves in writing. Suffice it to say then if there was real validity to your position it certainly is being bashed around about by insufficient writing skills. (Please see this travesty: http://onemorecup.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/americas-failing-grade.)
Furthermore the lack of (a) Constitutional knowledge and (b) the American history that inspired such is overwhelmingly obvious. Yet, what surprises me most is how ‘interest groups’ of varying sorts will try and utilize a situation to their own advantage without looking with aforethought.
I urge you therefore, as a professional and budding writer, to visit this link: The Thinker or American Age to perhaps gain some insight pursuant to your position. There…all very nice, composed, poised, logical, and professional.(Please click here for http://onemorecup.wordpress.com/ Same for American Age.)
Respectfully,
Jon—Paul
PS Required reading: Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side, by Levy; Original Meanings: Politics and Meaning in Making the Constitution, Jack Rakove, The Bill of Rights and the United States, by Conley and Kaminski. These three books are without question the cutting edge of Constitutional interpretation predicated upon life, time, and meaning.
I urge that you read: http://onemorecup.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/compromise-manipulation-or-a-crock/
December 8th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Jon Paul,
Your comments are misleading, asinine, prejudice, and most of all false.
I am a constitutional scholar with a healthy background in all of the subjects of which you speak. If you have so much constitutional knowledge why don’t you grace us with it and explain why constitutionally gays cannot marry? Why don’t you do that? Because you can’t.
You are simply disguising your bigotry and hatred for gays behind a poorly made quasi-intellectual argument that reeks of sophomoric pomposity.
December 10th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Because Mr. Paul insists on censoring and moderating any arguments on his site that he does not agree with, I will have to make my stand here. For the issue of gay marriage I further sum everything up in my new article (check the main page).
It is sad to see someone come onto a site and prejudge a person whom they have never met before. For Mr. Paul’s knowledge, I took his little civics quiz on that link and got a 97 on it. Maybe it’s my lack of US history or my sophomoric writing that don’t get my points across to him. Or maybe it’s the fact that Mr. Paul is perfectly willing to judge other’s opinions from his ivory tower without offering a single ounce of factual insight.
Mr. Paul’s post seems more like a promo for his own blog than intelligent criticism of this article.
We should all be thankful that here at The Purple Youth, critical, pompous, and even downright offensive discourse will never be censored as other blogs do. It was Voltaire who said “I do not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” At The Purple Youth, we encourage you to disagree with us–that’s what makes politics entertaining and that’s how the best solutions are always discovered. It’s quite entertaining. My well organized and thoughtful responses on Mr. Paul’s blog were cut out and any part of my argument that conflicted with his views was immediately omitted. Sadly his comment here is no different than any of his articles–full of half-baked theories without any true analysis or raw fact that permeate of child like arrogance and conceited rhetoric.