My Poli-Sci Paper On Gay Marriage
Here is a Poli-Sci Essay that I turned in yesterday, that I think I did a good job on, hopefully at least a 3.0. Here it is. Enjoy and please tell me your comments, Thanks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S.J.RES.1, known as the “Marriage Protection Amendment” was introduced to the Senate on January 24th 2005. If approved by both the Senate and the House of Representatives and was also signed by the President, this bill would add an amendment to the constitution declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman (The Library of Congress). The bill is supported by the president of the United States, George W. Bush, along with many other conservative groups such as The Family Research Panel and the Center for Reclaiming America, all who argue that marriage is a union that is meant to be between a man and a woman exclusively. The opponents of this bill include the Human Rights Campaign, the Equality Campaign and numerous other gay and civil rights activists. On this issue I side with the opponents of this particular legislation. Over the next few pages I plan I will argue my belief that if enacted it would seriously comprise the one of the very premises that the Constitution was founded on which is that: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof. I will argue that even though it would technically be constitutional if signed into effect, it would not be what the founding fathers had in mind when they framed the Constitution. I will argue that this possible amendment is nothing but a product of the moment, just as the proposed Anti Interracial Marriage Acts were in the 1960’s. Also, I will argue that this amendment is not the comprise that most Americans want but a radical solution that satisfies mainly the conservatives. I will on the other hand, show the thinking behind both sides of the argument and how both sides are fighting their battles. I will argue that the proponents of this bill, support it not because they belief that is what the Constitution says, but because they are blinded by their own religious views and it impairs their judgment on the issue. Finally, I will argue my own opinion on this issue and will state why I stand, as I do on this issue and if this bill is signed by the president, then no longer will the Constitution be a beacon for democracy, but a microphone for the hot topics of today that will have no real impact on tomorrow.
The bill was introduced in the senate as S.J. Res. 1 also know as “The Marriage Protection Amendment” was first proposed by Senator Wayne Allard Republican Colorado, and if enacted it would make an amendment to the Constitution (the 29th if there are no more additional amendments enacted) defining Marriage as between a man and a women exclusively (The Library of Congress). This bill is the continuation of the bill, H.R.3313 “Marriage Protection Bill” but was not enacted because it failed to be enacted because it did not pass the necessary steps in order to become an amendment in 2004. (The Library of Congress) The proponents of this bill state that moral fabric of this nations society is being torn apart and the call to mend it has to be answered (The Library of Congress). The Conservatives pushing this bill plan on using the majority in congress and in having a man in the White House who is in favor of it, to back it all the way to the end. There is attitudes that since the conservatives are religious that they have a moral responsibility to fight homosexual marriage. What many are arguing is that while many citizens are against the concept of to gay people joined together in marriage, they are open to the idea of civil unions as well, as they don’t want to discriminate against the homosexuals and seek a compromise just not encourage their perverted behavior (Finn).
The opponents of this bill have also been preparing for a show down with the opposition stating that among other things this bill would be unconstitutional and they have many previous court decisions to back up their point as well. In the most recent election one of the main issues was the topic of gay marriage. The man who won the election, Republican George W. Bush, was for a Defense of Marriage Act while his main competitor, Democrat John F. Kerry, was against gay marriage but was all for civil unions with all the same government benefits as marriage (Simon). Kerry’s defeat was felt by a few to be fatal blow to gay marriage rights, but still some point to how other countries are handling the issue. Canada has just recently given the go ahead for a proposal that would legalize all gay marriage in the country but the prime minister states that the clergy wouldn’t be compelled to preside over such unions (Martin). But in perhaps the biggest news to come out in defense of gay marriage came out of New York City, where a Manhattan judge cleared the way for same sex marriages to begin in the city of New York in the beginning of March 2005 (Cooperman) (Rutenburg ) Many people believe that if the nation’s largest city allowed gay marriage, that it might get the message across that the conservatives don’t speak for the entire nation.
All over the country, gay and civil rights activists have been posturing for the inevitable final show down with the Supreme Court with minor court cases challenging the law on the state or city level. California is proving to be a key state in the battle over gay rights with many of the important court cases taking place there (Romney). A same-sex couple wants a federal judge to overturn state and federal laws against same-sex marriage, arguing that those laws violate their civil rights and are equivalent to racial segregation. Calling gays "the most oppressed minority since slavery," the couple's attorney Richard C. Gilbert on January 20th told U.S. District Judge Gary Taylor "It now falls to you to uphold the principles of liberty.” (Associated Press). In late January 2005, also in California an Orange County couple has asked a judge to overturn the state and federal rules, they would be the first in California to take on the U.S. rule.
In Florida three gay couples dropped their challenge to their states Gay Marriage laws, because of the belief that if it went to the Supreme Court, the mostly conservative court would rule in favor of the anti-marriage laws, thus setting precedent that could prove difficult to reverse.(Associated Press).
The first Amendment of the Constitution, amendment I of the Bill of Rights states that: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (O’ Conner). By setting restrictions on marriage it is stating that marriage, a predominantly religious act, is under the jurisdiction of the government, and therefore is establishing a state religion. And by defining marriage as between a man and women and excluding gays and lesbians from taking part in it, it is prohibiting the free exercise of religion and is making decisions that should be left up to each individual religious sect not the government.
While many argue that such and amendment would be unconstitutional, there opponents are quick to point out that if bill is in fact made into a constitutional amendment then fir all intents and purposes, the act would be constitutional but this is not what the constitutional framers would have wanted. The founding fathers believed that in order for the Constitution to survive them they needed to make it a living-breathing document that could be adapted whenever considered absolutely necessary (O’ Conner). But I believe that they intended to have it amended only when the need was truly paramount and considered necessary by the majority. The reason why there are so few amendments over the 225 years that the Constitution has been around for, is that many of the politicians tried to refrain from enacting “flavor of the week amendments” or amendments on issues that have only been important for only a very few years. One could make the comparison between the current defense of marriage legislation, to the many anti interracial marriage acts that were quite popular in the 1960’s. Both at the time were considered taboo for their day and were socially frowned upon by many, but with time gained more and more social expectance, with interracial eventually becoming commonplace in today's society. It was said in opposition to those proposed acts of the 1960’s that defining marriage was not what our founding fathers desired to accomplish when they left the constitution as open for interpretation as they did.
It is in my own personal opinion that opponents to this bill have a much more sound case then the supporters of this bill do. I believe that a man or a women should be able to marry whoever they choice to, regardless of their sexual orientation, not because of my own personal religious convictions but because of the Constitutionality of the issue. The Constitution clearly states in the first amendment made to it, that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion or the prohibiting the free exercise therefore, meaning they have no power when it comes to religious decisions. If this was a battle over defining civil unions, the makers of this legislation would have more of a leg to stand on. The main reason why I’m against this proposed amendment is that by enacting it, we would become more of a religion driven state and the views of the many will often be drowned out by the voices of the powerful few.
In conclusion, the proposed legislation S.J. Res .1 “The Marriage Protection Amendment” is unconstitutional, and if passed would become constitutional, but twist the intended flexibility of the Constitution to point that it would become meaningless. If this bill is signed by the president, then no longer will the Constitution be a beacon for democracy, but a microphone for the hot topics of today that will have no real impact on tomorrow.
The bill was introduced in the senate as S.J. Res. 1 also know as “The Marriage Protection Amendment” was first proposed by Senator Wayne Allard Republican Colorado, and if enacted it would make an amendment to the Constitution (the 29th if there are no more additional amendments enacted) defining Marriage as between a man and a women exclusively (The Library of Congress). This bill is the continuation of the bill, H.R.3313 “Marriage Protection Bill” but was not enacted because it failed to be enacted because it did not pass the necessary steps in order to become an amendment in 2004. (The Library of Congress) The proponents of this bill state that moral fabric of this nations society is being torn apart and the call to mend it has to be answered (The Library of Congress). The Conservatives pushing this bill plan on using the majority in congress and in having a man in the White House who is in favor of it, to back it all the way to the end. There is attitudes that since the conservatives are religious that they have a moral responsibility to fight homosexual marriage. What many are arguing is that while many citizens are against the concept of to gay people joined together in marriage, they are open to the idea of civil unions as well, as they don’t want to discriminate against the homosexuals and seek a compromise just not encourage their perverted behavior (Finn).
The opponents of this bill have also been preparing for a show down with the opposition stating that among other things this bill would be unconstitutional and they have many previous court decisions to back up their point as well. In the most recent election one of the main issues was the topic of gay marriage. The man who won the election, Republican George W. Bush, was for a Defense of Marriage Act while his main competitor, Democrat John F. Kerry, was against gay marriage but was all for civil unions with all the same government benefits as marriage (Simon). Kerry’s defeat was felt by a few to be fatal blow to gay marriage rights, but still some point to how other countries are handling the issue. Canada has just recently given the go ahead for a proposal that would legalize all gay marriage in the country but the prime minister states that the clergy wouldn’t be compelled to preside over such unions (Martin). But in perhaps the biggest news to come out in defense of gay marriage came out of New York City, where a Manhattan judge cleared the way for same sex marriages to begin in the city of New York in the beginning of March 2005 (Cooperman) (Rutenburg ) Many people believe that if the nation’s largest city allowed gay marriage, that it might get the message across that the conservatives don’t speak for the entire nation.
All over the country, gay and civil rights activists have been posturing for the inevitable final show down with the Supreme Court with minor court cases challenging the law on the state or city level. California is proving to be a key state in the battle over gay rights with many of the important court cases taking place there (Romney). A same-sex couple wants a federal judge to overturn state and federal laws against same-sex marriage, arguing that those laws violate their civil rights and are equivalent to racial segregation. Calling gays "the most oppressed minority since slavery," the couple's attorney Richard C. Gilbert on January 20th told U.S. District Judge Gary Taylor "It now falls to you to uphold the principles of liberty.” (Associated Press). In late January 2005, also in California an Orange County couple has asked a judge to overturn the state and federal rules, they would be the first in California to take on the U.S. rule.
In Florida three gay couples dropped their challenge to their states Gay Marriage laws, because of the belief that if it went to the Supreme Court, the mostly conservative court would rule in favor of the anti-marriage laws, thus setting precedent that could prove difficult to reverse.(Associated Press).
The first Amendment of the Constitution, amendment I of the Bill of Rights states that: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (O’ Conner). By setting restrictions on marriage it is stating that marriage, a predominantly religious act, is under the jurisdiction of the government, and therefore is establishing a state religion. And by defining marriage as between a man and women and excluding gays and lesbians from taking part in it, it is prohibiting the free exercise of religion and is making decisions that should be left up to each individual religious sect not the government.
While many argue that such and amendment would be unconstitutional, there opponents are quick to point out that if bill is in fact made into a constitutional amendment then fir all intents and purposes, the act would be constitutional but this is not what the constitutional framers would have wanted. The founding fathers believed that in order for the Constitution to survive them they needed to make it a living-breathing document that could be adapted whenever considered absolutely necessary (O’ Conner). But I believe that they intended to have it amended only when the need was truly paramount and considered necessary by the majority. The reason why there are so few amendments over the 225 years that the Constitution has been around for, is that many of the politicians tried to refrain from enacting “flavor of the week amendments” or amendments on issues that have only been important for only a very few years. One could make the comparison between the current defense of marriage legislation, to the many anti interracial marriage acts that were quite popular in the 1960’s. Both at the time were considered taboo for their day and were socially frowned upon by many, but with time gained more and more social expectance, with interracial eventually becoming commonplace in today's society. It was said in opposition to those proposed acts of the 1960’s that defining marriage was not what our founding fathers desired to accomplish when they left the constitution as open for interpretation as they did.
It is in my own personal opinion that opponents to this bill have a much more sound case then the supporters of this bill do. I believe that a man or a women should be able to marry whoever they choice to, regardless of their sexual orientation, not because of my own personal religious convictions but because of the Constitutionality of the issue. The Constitution clearly states in the first amendment made to it, that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion or the prohibiting the free exercise therefore, meaning they have no power when it comes to religious decisions. If this was a battle over defining civil unions, the makers of this legislation would have more of a leg to stand on. The main reason why I’m against this proposed amendment is that by enacting it, we would become more of a religion driven state and the views of the many will often be drowned out by the voices of the powerful few.
In conclusion, the proposed legislation S.J. Res .1 “The Marriage Protection Amendment” is unconstitutional, and if passed would become constitutional, but twist the intended flexibility of the Constitution to point that it would become meaningless. If this bill is signed by the president, then no longer will the Constitution be a beacon for democracy, but a microphone for the hot topics of today that will have no real impact on tomorrow.
posted by Robert Westervelt @ 2/24/2005 02:31:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home