by Matthew J. Geiger

Created on: October 14, 2010

In May of 2010, the Courts once again angered Californian voters; this time, the Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker went so far as to strike down Proposition 8, i.e. the Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  Whether or not Americans accept homosexual behavior as proper does not necessarily give voters the right to encroach upon the personal freedoms of individuals, even with a Constitutional Amendment.  It was, therefore, the responsibility of the Courts to decide if the State Constitutional ban on gay marriage violated already existing rights.  Although I feel much of the judge’s views and assertions will be filtered out should the case go to the US Supreme Court, the recent decision is probably correct in that such a ban does violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment while I believe Constitutional Amendments should be used to expand the freedoms of individuals, never to undermine them.

That said, the decision has failed to protect the First Amendment rights of those who view marriage as a religious institution between a man and woman, though it may not have been possible to do this under this particular case.  To balance the rights of both sides the only recourse is to correct a long standing overreach of government.  That is, government has no right to dictate the terms of marriage.  Yes, it can recognize civil unions and bless them with certain benefits, like tax breaks, but marriage as a religious institute cannot be undermined by the Courts or legislators.  In other words, the only solution to this contentious debate is for our government to start issuing civil unions while leaving the certification of marriage to the Churches. 

Should the Supreme Court eventually decide there is a fundamental right to marriage for homosexual couples, there is a lot of baggage that the Courts, as well as our legislators, will have to address.  Unlike the civil liberty disparities faced by minorities and women, discrimination against homosexuality revolves around a group, which is defined by its behavior, not its innate characteristics.  In other words, blacks and women faced discrimination no matter where they went or what they did; whereas, homosexuals face discrimination due to their behavior and the lifestyle they choose, just as anyone who chooses a controversial lifestyle would face. 

Certainly, this does not mean homosexuals should

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>