No Constitutional Exception of Liberty for Gay Citizens

Same-Sex Marriage: No Constitutional Exception of Liberty for Gay Citizens.

Why do people get married? What is marriage and why is the idea of marriage so appealing to so many people? From day one, most little girls live each day of their lives waiting for three special moments: prom, graduation, and marriage. By the time they are old enough to get married and find the right person to settle down with, they have their own wedding just about planned out in detail. It is every girl's dream to live out their "dream wedding." Is it not the sacred idea of spending the rest of your life with the person you love? Why would anyone want to deny anyone else pure happiness? If, in twenty years of watching your child grow up, he or she decides to get married and the person they have fallen in love with and spend a lifetime with is a person of the same sex, would you be able to deny them that right? If you had to look into their eyes and tell them that they cannot marry and had to watch their eyes water up, would you be able to? In my own life, I am a religious person and I have strong beliefs concerning same-sex marriages, but I also know people that I genuinely care about that are gay. Why would I ever want to deny them happiness? Recent political events have shed sudden light on an issue that the American public has long been avoiding: Same-sex marriage. Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry? As human beings and American citizens, are same sex couples entitled to the same protections that law provides to heterosexual married couples? Unlike most of the usual pro/con debates, this particular issue has three sides. There's the "no" side that argues that the benefits of marriage are sanctimonious and that they should be provided only to opposite sex couples. The "yes" side would argue that marriage is a basic civil right and should be provided to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation. The third side meets the previous two extremes somewhere in the middle, stating that while the term "marriage" is sanctimonious and should be reserved only for opposite sex couples, the benefits of marriage should be available to all couples regardless of sexual orientation. Each side has its own theories in a debate that is anything but black and white, however for argumentative purposes; my stand on the issue of same-sex marriage is that same-sex couples should have the right to marry. It is considered unconstitutional to ban same-sex marriages. Also, they should receive the same recognition as opposite-sex couples.

Before I discuss the legalities of same-sex marriages, I would need to define the legal jargon. "It is surprisingly hard to figure out what words are appropriate in legal issues such as same-sex marriages. Words have often helped to perpetuate homophobia and hate- "faggot," for instance, is derived from the French word for the bundles of sticks used to burn homosexuals at the stake. And as Truman Capote said, "A fag is a homosexual gentleman who has left the room." In the end, we have chosen to keep it simple. 'Partner,' 'lover,' 'lesbian,' and 'gay' are the words we use, and we will refer throughout the book to 'same-sex couples'." (Hayden)

Marriage is legally defined (in California) as the joint union between one free man and one free woman in the presence of a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony (a minister, priest, judge, justice of the peace, or some similar official). At present, no state recognizes marriage between people of the same sex. A few states expressly prohibit same-sex marriages. Every state, however, has marriage laws that define what requirements must be met before two people may obtain a marriage license. Such requirements usually specify that the applicants must be of a certain age, not closely related by blood, single, and free from certain types of venereal disease. (Hayden) Some state statutes specifically require that applicants be members of the opposite sex. However, California, Vermont, Hawaii, and New Jersey residents can enter into legal relationships that offer many of the same rights and duties as marriage. (Hunter)

In Baehr v. Mike (1996), three same-sex couples sued the state of Hawaii, arguing that its failure to issue them marriage licenses violated the Equal Rights Amendment to the state constitution. In response to new legislation banning same-sex marriages, the legislature, however, provided for a new class of partners called "reciprocal beneficiaries". Even though Hawaii was the first state to ban same sex marriages, Hawaii had passed the first statewide domestic partnership law and they called this the Baehr Decision. (Hayden)

Soon after the Baehr Decision, in the Baker v. State case (1999, Vermont Supreme Court), it was argued, that the underlying purpose of marriage is to protect and encourage the union of committed couples and that, absent an explicit legislative prohibition, the statutes should be interpreted broadly to include committed same-sex couples. Assuming that the marriage statutes preclude their eligibility for a marriage license, plaintiffs contend that the exclusion violates their right to the common benefit and protection of the law guaranteed by the Vermont Constitution. (Amestoy) Because of this, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting same sex marriage violated the provision of the Vermont Constitution guaranteeing equal rights to all citizens because it denied same sex couples the rights to which straight couples were entitled. (Hayden) The United States Supreme has declared marriage to be "of fundamental importance