PIE - Politically Incorrect Editorials

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Gay Marriage - there oughta be a law

Now listening to….Negative Creep, by Nirvana, which by the way is the best band to come out of the 90’s… and probably the 80’s too. I say that because it finally killed off the last of those makeup wearing, aqua-net using, spandex abusing, so-called Hair Metal Bands. But that’s a rant for another day.

Anyway, I wish someone could actually give me a valid reason why the stay-out-of-our-business Conservatives are trying to actually add laws or even an amendment to our revered Constitution banning same-sex marriage.

As if we don’t get enough crap from the left about the PATRIOT ACT interfering with our freedoms.

This, to me, is nothing more than an equal protection issue. I remember that in some document or another, it has been stated, All men are created equal. How is it, if we are all created equal, and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, we seek to limit the rights of one group?

Now… I could be wrong here, but I think that there is another statement in one of those same documents that states that (I'm paraphrasing here)

Amendment XIV: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Ha! I wasn't paraphasing, that's an actual quote from the Constitution uhh… the emphasis is mine, however. From my non-legal background, the equality of the rights of marriage should fall under this clause. Oh Bah! Marriage is not a right. It's a state sanctioned ceremony that gives a lot of benefits. (and causes 94% of all divorces).

From http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html, comes this analysis of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right

Yeah… that’s what I mean. One class (heterosexual) of people enjoys certain benefits from marriage. This includes differences in taxation, ability to be included on the spouse’s insurance, ability to become the immediate heir of assets in the case of the death of one of the spouses, and like 300,000 more. I just don’t want to name them here.*

Now, there’s another class of citizens (homosexual) to whom these benefits do not apply. How is this not a direct violation of the 14th amendment?

So, we have a law (marriage does fall under state law, so bear with me) that allows one group of people to benefit and denies another group. Hmmm…. Something doesn’t add up.

“But”, I hear you all thinking, “the majority voted, and we are in a democracy, so the majority rules”. I must say, you have a point there. Not a valid one, but a point nonetheless. There is no moral way for the majority to vote anyone’s rights away without damaging the already ailing Constitution. If majority rule was actually valid in the case of rights, we would all still be living on plantations.

Q: Why not just allow civil unions?
A: Didn't we already figure out that separate but equal is definately separate, but hardly equal?

Now, if we want to end all this darn fuss about same sex marriage, why do we not just remove all benefits from state-sanctioned marriage? That way, there's no difference in benefits for those married and those not married according to the state.

*but I will if I must


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home