The U.S. Supreme Court is in the process of hearing arguments in regards to the constitutionality of Proposition 8, an initiative in California that banned same-sex marriage, and the Defensive Marriage Act, a federal law enacted in 1996 that prevents the federal government from offering benefits to same-sex couples, even if they are considered to be married by the state they reside in. The arguments in favor of Proposition 8 and upholding DOMA are far-fetched to say the least. Advocates for Prop. 8 contend that restricting marriage to heterosexual couples must be rational because for thousands of years people widely agreed that marriage involved the union of a man and woman. They also argue that marriage's purpose is to ensure that children are born into families; therefore, California should be allowed to limit marriage to only those capable of having babies. If you think of sterile marriages between heterosexual 50 year-olds, for example, they most likely can't have babies, but are still allowed to marry, while most gay couples, no matter their age, aren't allowed to be legally married in 40 states.
My hope is that the Court's ruling isn't narrow. If the justices rule in favor of allowing same-sex marriages, it should set precedent for all the states. Prop. 8 could be knocked down on procedural grounds, resulting in the Court's ruling to have a limited effect on other states besides California. I believe this will not be the holding, however. Polls show the majority of Americans support extending marriage rights to gay individuals. The Court should affirm what most Americans believe in, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because homosexuals are people, and therefore deserve equal civil rights as heterosexuals. Sexual orientation shouldn't prevent people from getting married, just like people with different skin color are protected from federal discrimination under U.S. law.
No comments:
Post a Comment