Appeals court halts gay marriages in Mich.
The appeals court decided to delay implementation of a district court's decision that Michigan's gay marriage ban violated the 14th Amendment in order to be provided an opportunity to review the appeal of the case. This comes after judges in Texas, Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia have struck down each state's respective gay marriage ban. All five of these decisions have come since last December.
I believe that these state gay marriage bans are not unconstitutional. The intent of the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with allowing gay marriage, but was only intended to protect the rights of blacks following the civil war. The key of the amendment is its intent, not what the modern definitions of the words are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In response to Andrew, language is constantly evolving. If we are only to interpret words as they were originally intended to mean, then Andrew does not believe that "merry, lively" marriage bans are unconstitutional. I do not believe there is a sound legal argument against two people of the same gender marrying each other. In addition, the people who argue that homosexuality is a sin and should therefore be illegal, must not be aware that here in the United States we have a separation of church and state. I'm tired of people fighting against equality and cannot wait to see the day when everyone is free to marry whomever they want.
ReplyDeleteThe 14th amendment clearly 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." Any law banning gay marriage clearly violates a person of life, liberty, and property. Although the original constitution makes no mention of gay marriage that doesn't mean it's constitutionality doesn't exist.The country was founded on the principles of freedom; there's no arguing that. We should continue that tradition of freedom and allow same-sex marriage. We cannot continue declaring America as the land of the free if we don't even allow something as simple as marriage between two people that love each other.
ReplyDeleteAs Emily said, in America we have a separation of church and state. My interpretation of that means there should be no legal arguments when it comes to "sins", yet it is one of the biggest arguments preventing gay marriage from becoming legal. I have not heard a single argument that makes sense that should have the ability to prevent gay marriage. My stance is why should you care what other people do? If it does not directly effect your well-being, you shouldn't care and shouldn't be able to prevent it
ReplyDeleteI think those who are against gay marriage are fighting a losing battle. I agree with Olivia that we can't continue calling ourselves "the land of the free" when we refuse fundemental rights from a large proportion our population. I also agree with Emily that, because we have seperation of the church and state, there is no legal way to argue that gay marriage is a sin. A "compromise" people suggest is to legally allow gay couples the same tax benefits as a straight married couples, but don't call it marriage. This "compromise" is only a temporary solution that still treats gays as second-class citizens and merely dances around the issue. What if the gay couple wants a religous marriage? What if s non-religous straight couple doesn't want their marriage labled as a "marriage". I think the best solution is to legalize gay marriage and let individual churches decide whether they want to perform gay marriage services.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm about to say is basically a copy and paste of what Olivia just said.
ReplyDeleteAs she said, it is clearly outlined in the 14th amendment and any state court making their own laws on what they feel is constitutionally correct is against federal law. What the appeals court did is in clear violation and immediate action should be done to right this wrong.
If Americans were to apply Andrew's logic (that amendments only apply to the specific situation for which they are created) to other sections of the Constitution, we would find ourselves in a very different country. For example, when the 2nd Amendment was written, guns were somewhat different from what they are now; should Americans only be granted the right to own Revolutionary-era muskets? No. The meaning behind a constitutional amendment has to deal with the principle of what is said. If the 14th Amendment prohibits the deprivation of life, liberty, or property, then it doesn't matter that gay marriage was not a very big issue in 1868. States are still violating the Constitution by denying gays their equal rights.
ReplyDeleteHa!!! Smooth bore muskets only!!! I for one would feel much safer :)
DeleteThe controversy over gay rights drives me up a wall. I cannot understand why this is even a question. Not only does the 14th amendment support gay rights, it just seems like common sense to allow them to marry. I have never once heard a valid argument as to why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. People that fight against this cause don't have a brain. This drives me crazy.
ReplyDeleteJust because the intentions for the 14th amendment were not about gay rights, the principles are still there. We must look at what the Constitution says and apply it to modern standards and definitions. Homosexuals are considered citizens and so the should have the right to get married. Also the argument made by people opposing gay marriage is one based on their personal religious views on marriage, which differs from that of the government. For example, some churches do not allow divorce, but the government permits it.
ReplyDeleteThe logical fallacies that make up anti-marriage-eguality arguments are endless. We amend the constitution and have our courts rule (most of the time) with stare decisis basing rulings on previous cases for a reason. Language was made to change with the world around it. We cannot condone the limitation of people's rights because of previous definitions or invading religious dogma. Both the fourteenth and first amendment clearly prohibit these actions. Limiting tax benefits, healthcare, and the right to have an official marriage blatantly contradicts the constitution
ReplyDelete