When an issue is presented to the Supreme Court, it is often times highly controversial and important in relation to our Country. One can cite several different examples, however the one that I will focus on is the Defense of Marriage act. This act, drawn up under President Bill Clinton, is the outline by the federal government as to what defines legal marriage. According to the act, a marriage as recognized by the federal government is a union between a man and a woman. While this seems on the surface to be unnecessary, the recent development of homosexual marriage as sparked a controversy to this act.
The problem lies in that while the federal government has a valid definition of what marriage is, the act also officially declares that the individual states have the right to make their own legal implications for gay marriage. In addition to this, it also states that the other states can ignore a homosexual marriage based at its own discretion. The whole question then lies to the legality and constitutionality of the act. If I was an acting member of the Supreme Court, I would most certainty have a difficult time making a decision about this. In my personal belief, I will defiantly state that I feel very strongly against the legality of homosexual marriage because I think it’s wrongful according to my religious beliefs. However, if I were in the position such as a Supreme Court justice, I would have to put my beliefs behind me when looking at the legality of this act. It is clearly states in the fabric of our founding documents that all men our created equal.
I also believe very strongly in the separation of state and religion. As such, I would have to rule that this act is unconstitutional because it very clearly restricts a group of people from having equal rights. This in my opinion violates the constitution and everything that our country stands for. That being said, I would not rule that the states have to honor the other states decisions for the marriage because I don’t think that the Supreme Court should have the authority to undermine the individual states and their right to make the decision to recognize homosexual marriage. I think judicial restraint is important because activism would cause more problems than it would solve. There are many areas that are still extremely against homosexual marriage.
So for the federal government to make a decision to force the states to recognize other state’s decisions will cause hostile reactions from many states. I think to back my opinion on the right to marriage is supported by precedents such as Laurence v Texas, which ruled that sexual acts between two individuals are acceptable between consenting adults of age regardless of sexual orientation. This lends to the fact that restrictions put on a group of people based on their sexual orientation is essentially unconstitutional. If this situation is not legal by the constitution, then restrictions on marriage should fall in the same category.
Our country has always had momentous events that have marked our history for civil rights. Gay marriage, while on the surface is very different from other past civil rights issues; it demands similar respect and attention from the federal government. Whenever a group of people don’t have the same rights as everybody else because of a restriction set by the government it violates the constitution. It is the supreme courts’ role to declare things that are unconstitutional. As the scenario was presented to me, I as a Supreme Court justice would have to lend my legal opinion on the constitutionality of the marriage act. As is stands, it violates human rights and thus should be eliminated, however, the policy of letting the states set their own laws for marriage should be upheld. This will ensure that people will not be forced to accept something they disagree with.
No comments:
Post a Comment