States, not judges, should decide who marries
By Taylor Hall
The Supreme Court will take up two cases dealing with same-sex marriage and should arrive at a decision around June. If the court makes a substantive ruling, it may overturn many state laws — allowing same-sex couples the right to civil marriage. Or it may uphold laws like California’s constitutional amendment, Proposition8, which only allows for traditional civil marriages. Whether justices think gay marriage is right or wrong, their job is to interpret the Constitution. Otherwise, we have activist judges who make the law based on whatever their fiat dictates. I think the court should ultimately decide to leave the question of allowing same-sex couples the status of a civil marriage to the respective elected state legislature and their constituency.
Probably the best argument gay marriage advocates have is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It says, “[no state shall] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” More broadly, it could be interpreted as “no state shall deny to any person the equal treatment of the laws.” Gay-marriage advocates may say that this grants same-sex couples the same status that opposite-sex couples have in a civil marriage because their marriages are not treated equally or with the same status.
Hall lives in Floyd and has taught in Seoul, South Korea.
December 19, 2012 - 6:15 AM
So I was reading Taylor Hall’s column, written in obvious opposition to marriage equality for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples … when all of the sudden Hall veers way off into the twilight zone with some unrelated observation about transgendered persons’ use of gender-appropriate restrooms. Oh well, I’ve become accustomed to such twisted logic from the opponents of fair treatment for Gay couples.
The fact remains that the debate over marriage equality for Gay couples can not be handled in a piecemeal, state-by-state basis, because it’s the FEDERAL government which has made this a FEDERAL issue. Most of the legal benefits and protections of marriage come from the federal government, much of this having to do with tax law, inheritance, child custody, Social Security, etc. So it wouldn’t do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa to become UN-married if they decide to move south to Missouri. That would be in violation of the “Full Faith & Credit” clause of the Constitution.
Unless Taylor Hall thinks the Constitution only applies to people who are Straight (i.e. heterosexual), there is simply no justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted.
Sadly Chuck, a great many Americans do indeed believe that the Constitution only applies to people who are heterosexual, white, born in America to American parents, and not a liberal. Agreed, there is no justification on earth for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities under the law that Straight couples have always taken for granted. None.
Neither states nor judges should have any say in who a person decides to share his life with (apologies for the tortured grammar).
Since the only reason for a state to issue a marriage license is to extract a fee (a tax by any other name)…
…get the state (irrespective) of the marriage license business completely.
#2 – “Sadly Chuck, a great many Americans do indeed believe that the Constitution only applies to people who are heterosexual, white, born in America to American parents, and not a liberal.”
Really? What’s your definition of “a great many”?
Seriously? What does my definition of “a great many” matter? Are you going to pretend there are only a few hundred, thousand, or million? The crap these destructive people say matters and they have successfully blocked all efforts at equality when the choice was left to them in many states and several historic time periods.
“when all of the sudden Hall veers way off into the twilight zone with some unrelated observation about transgendered persons’ use of gender-appropriate restrooms. ”
And the next thing you know, by golly, they’ll demand to be able to marry dogs. Ya can’t give them preverts an inch.