March 10, 2010
What If It Was Eve and Eve?
Same-sex marriage has sparked one of the biggest debates in the last decade. In the 1967 Supreme Court decision making interracial marriages legal, it was said that anti-miscegenation laws were ‘unconstitutional’. Although the federal Constitution never actually states that marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman, it has become the accepted norm since the time of the Constitution’s ratification in 1776. It should therefore be stated that prohibiting same-sex marriage is not ‘unconstitutional’, but ‘unethical’. On that note, one cannot say that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, ...view middle of the document...
Gore election. Now they work side by side as key players in what they call “…one of the most important civil rights trials of the last decade…” After Proposition 8 passed, Olson and Boies joined forced in defending two couples, two men, two women, who had been denied the right to marry. When asked why they were taking the same side on this issue, Olson said:
“We're not advocating any recognition of a new right…The right to marry is in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has recognized that over and over again. We're talking about whether two individuals should be treated equally under the equal rights protection clause of the Constitution - the same thing the Supreme Court did in 1967, [when it] recognized the constitutional rights of people of different races to marry."(Two)
Whether Olson is referring to the California Constitution or the United States Constitution is unclear, but it is apparent that his main point is that it does not matter whether someone is gay or straight, but whether it is fair to treat that person differently or unjustly because of it. Boies added:
"There are certain rights that are so fundamental that the Constitution guarantees them to every citizen regardless of what a temporary majority may or may not vote for.... If you didn't tell the majority of the voters they were wrong sometimes under the Constitution, you wouldn't need a Constitution. The whole point of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment is to say, 'This is a democracy. But it's also a democracy in which we protect minority rights ...' what the Constitution says is that every citizen gets equal protection of the law. It doesn't just say heterosexuals."(Two)
Boies’ statement is much in line with Olson’s, but he adds the crucial fact that every person has a right to the protection set down by the founding fathers, disregarding the public opinion. No amount of protesting will alter the U.S. Constitution the way Prop 8 changed the California Constitution. Putting a line or two into the Constitution limiting marriage in the United States to only a man and a woman would be an abomination in many respects. First off, it would make a complete joke of our national anthem, which states that we are the ‘land of the free’. If we are not even free to marry who we want, what’s to say we don’t just take that line out? It may not seem as though the Star Spangled Banner is all that important an argument, but it goes beyond that. Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is tarnishing America’s reputation in a time when that hardly seems possible. In a time of “…record high unemployment, diminishing job prospects, a ballooning budget deficit that is choking our economy and crucial social service programs, a public school system that is in great need of attention and a health care system that is failing over 43 million Americans that remain uninsured…” (NAACP), and our government is more focused on who is marrying whom.
The freedom of...