Image via WikipediaJudge Vaughn Walker’s ruling is based on the 14th Amendment to our Constitution an amendment adopted in 1868 after the Civil War and called the Reconstruction Amendments which simply ensured that blacks get equal treatment and equal protection under the law even though they apply to all Americans.
There are a number of parts to this amendment but only two (2) are applicable to our case.
The first is the DUE PROCESS clause which prohibits state and local governments from depriving people of life, liberty or property without certain legal steps (due process) being taken. It dates to the Magna Carta drawn up between the King of England and his nobles that forbade the king to do anything he wishes, he must obey the law of the land so in essence due process protects the individual from the state.
The due process clause protects an individual’s fundamental rights which are deeply rooted in American history and traditions and here you may argue that the definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman is part of our history and tradition but here is where the judge makes his point…
The judge states that individuals have a fundamental right to marry and states cannot deny this right to individuals without due process (trial). The right to marry has not changed but the evolution of marriage as per our understanding of gender and gender roles in our society has changed. I have touched on this in my first blog on the subject of how the definition of marriage has changed in our society.
I know this is a hard concept to grasp since even the Supreme Court has had trouble with it in the past; remember Roe vs. Wade and the fundamental right to privacy?
The next clause is the EQUAL PROTECTION clause which bars discrimination (in its simplest interpretation). This clause has had a rough history, remember “separate but equal” but now has settled down to mean what it states that no state shall deny to any specific group the protection all other groups receive.
This may be easier to understand since a state discriminating against a group must prove a legitimate state interest in restricting marriage to only heterosexuals and quite frankly there is no compelling reason to block gays from marrying; a ban on gay marriage has no rational basis.
Please remember that your personal moral view of gay marriage does not apply here just like gay sex used to be against the law because people thought it was abnormal and sinful BUT that is not a reason to make it illegal.
The state cannot prove that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples; no proof exists.
You may here arguments saying that the majority of Californians passed this legislation banning gay marriage but the duty of a judge is to rule whether that law (no matter how popular) is constitutional and remember, we are a REPUBLIC (not a democracy) which means we follow THE RULE OF LAW which is our Constitution.
Let the arguments begin…
No comments:
Post a Comment