Jesse Jones Ms. Land U.S. Government April 24, 2004
The Continuing Struggle for Equal Rights in America
America is heading into some of its darkest times. Our civil rights are under attack as a result of the “war on terror,” we are in the middle of an unjust, almost imperial occupation in Iraq, our economy is in the worst shape it has seen in nearly a decade, and yet our president has the nerve to support a constitutional amendment that blatantly violates the right to pursue happiness of an obscene number of American citizens.
For the information of the reader, the proposed amendment will be included here.
“Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred on unmarried couples or groups. “ (Source: http://www.firstthings.com/ft...)
It is essential to note that the U.S. Constitution calls marriage one of the “basic civil rights of man'' and a “fundamental freedom.'' It states that “the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.'' This language is from the ruling in Loving vs. Virginia which held that a statute prohibiting interracial marriage was a denial of due process. There is already a legal precedent set to prove the proposed amendment unconstitutional.
The campaign to prevent gay marriage from being sanctioned is being led by the religious right of the country. It is unacceptable to base national policy on the laws of any religion. Opponents to the sanction of gay marriage by the government claim that such an action would undermine the “sanctity” of marriage, a sacred institution created by God. However, to maintain a healthy separation of church and state, it is essential that the government refuse to officially recognize God. It is this fact that defeats the “sanctity of marriage” argument, but if one needs further convincing, one should consider an argument which is well put in Maria Barnaba’s letter from the “Correspondence” section of the April 2004 issue of Rolling Stone magazine: “It amazes me that any two drunken strangers of opposite sexes can get married in Vegas, but lifelong partners can’t make legal vows to each other just because their gender happens to be the same.”
The “sanctity of marriage” argument is easily defeated by the necessity of the separation of church and state, and the obvious fact that allowing any two individuals in loving relationships to marry, regardless of their sex, will do nothing to harm the state of healthy sexual practices in the country, and refusal to equal rights. On the other side of the coin refusal to do so will also do nothing to help the state of unhealthy sexual practices in America.
It is necessary to refute the belief of the intolerant, sheep like masses that homosexuality is “just gross”, or “just wrong”. To make such statements without any evidence of why homosexuality is “wrong” is foolish. Scientific studies show homosexuality occurs in animals in nature, animals such as penguins which don’t exhibit any other particular strange, barbaric, of even “gross” behavior. To say that homosexuality is not a trait that we are born with is to tell a relatively large portion of the population that they are liars.
It is not a wide stretch of the imagination to believe that the White House is putting emphasis on this issue to win votes for re-election in November, and to draw attention from the worsening quagmire in Iraq. Even if the law were in a position to justifiably prevent homosexual marriage, the idea of wasting time and resources on a constitutional amendment is outrageous when it could be left to the states to ban the practice with their own law. Besides, it should be obvious to the average person that if Jerry Falwell rabidly supports something, it’s a good idea to take the opposite stand.
