Since your writing your paper only on the basis of the constitution, I will provide it in such a manner. There opinion is strictly coming from a strong conservative. I am a conservative not because of the litmus issues, but because of governmental issues. It just so happens though that many of the litmus party platforms, I believe in as well. That said, I am not a 'christian-toting' neo-conservative. I believe in god, but I also believe in free-will. Those who lead good lives will be rewarded as an act of reciprocity. Now that you understand where my opinion comes from, I will give it.
Unfortunately there is no scientific, religious, or social foundations that permit or deny gay marriage. Infact, those who choose to bring up religion in this debate are misinformed and are speaking just to speak. In a book by Bob McCann, entitled Justice for Gays and Lesbians, it outlines many major Christian doctrines including the Episcopalean, Methodist, Catholic, Presbytarian, and Baptist. In which, there is only one modern religious doctrine (what pastors preach about) that doesn't accept or slide by the gay marriage issue. In the Methodist doctrine, it is elicitally written that no pastor shall ever preach on the subject of marriage as to not offend or deny religious freedoms to those of same-sex beliefs. The Episcopal church is is divided currently and is on the verge of becoming to seperate churches. The Catholic religion is the only religion that currently denys same-sex marriage to its members and deems it unholy; as a sin. With the new Pope in power as a stronger reconstructionist, it will get stricter not more open. So to say that because the bible restricts gay marriage is defying all current religions with the exception of Catholicism. No bases for change on that belief only.
In that case, what does the constitution say? Well, honestly it says nothing. When the constitution was written, this was not of a concern. Homosexuality was strictly prohibited and those taking parts in acts would have been exiled or killed. No need to write what isn't needed. Post 1950's/Vietnam, you can view the 'slippery slope' of more liberal thinking. Before the 1920's enlightenment period (time of the 'city' girl), woman stayed at home, raised children, cooked, cleaned, all the goods. During the period from the 20's to the 60's woman in middle to lower class positions started taking part-time working roles (less then 20% of the woman population) to help during the depression and to seek personal freedoms 'apparantly' denied to them before. After the 'hippie' era and the civil rights movement, people of all beliefs and thoughts sought equality. First woman were no longer 'thought' of to stay at home, but they were told they had to work. African Americans sought equality through affirmitive action which has all but backfired. Televisions and such shows have shown a significant decline in social capital and have began to alter peoples beliefs. 1972's ruling of Roe v. Wade set foot to the liberal thought movement across America since the courts were now willing to hear traditionally state controlled issues. Even before that, the creation of the 14th Amendment established the ability for reformist or sociological justices to read into the constitution how they wanted. In particular, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment has been the brain child for this liberal thought -
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.
So what is life, liberty, and property? Following Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court set the precedent that there were certain unalienable rights, such as undefined rights that were suitable to life, liberty, or property. This essentially opened the door for anyone with enough support and evidence to determine it legal. The gay marriage subject though is one the Supreme Court has not touched, and doubtfully will anytime in the near future. Why? Well there are three ways the Supreme Court rules on cases; Rational Basis - an overwhelming change in thought, evidence, or information. In the interest of the states, Strict Scrutiny - compelling governmental interest for the welfare of the people; not just legitmate reasoning, but compelling, and Middle-Level review for items that aren't compelling, but more than legitimate. The same-sex marriage falls only under the rational basis category making it in no interest for the Supreme Court to rule on. In order for it to be ruled, they would only accept strict scrutiny in which there was compelling interest. Thus they have left it up to the states under the 10th Amendment, which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
So it remains in the hands of the states where strict constructionist judges rule that it is immoral and defies the sanctity of marriage. Other reformist judges such as in Massachusets will rule that its in the best interest of the people to make it legal. Same basis for decriminalizing marijuana, banning partial-birth abortions, ecettera. So if your writing on the basis of the law, there you have it.
So now, my opinion - marriage was and will always be defined as the union of a man and a woman. The thought of homosexuality is irrational and goes against human nature. We as humans have the ability to process thoughts and the thought of two physically identicle men partaking in sexual actions goes against human rationality. The number one identified reason for homosexuality is through child raising, in which the highest rate of homosexual men come from intercity, single parent (mother in particular), lower to middle class families with more than one child. Infact that numbers of middle to upper class traditional family households have the lowest numbers of homosexual children. My thoughts are that the children are lashing out or seeking differences to standout since they lacked the care and nurturing needed as a child. Furthermore, it goes against humanity. The sole nature of animals, humans included, is the reproduce. It is imbedded in our DNA that we have one goal in life, to procreate. Thus the reason why homosexual couples still have to partake in sexual activities. There is a reason why the womans vagina has natural lubrication and receptors to make sex both easy and pleasurable. The anus has neither of those. The Merian-Websters dictionary was amended in 2002 to include the same-sex marriage clause, just as 'bling-bling' is a word amongst others. If you can take that dictionary seriously, then you are prime example of the liberal thought evolution of America. People have the ability to make choices for themselves, but with the decline of morals in America, people are making more and more of the wrong ones. Look at the lending problems, abortion problems, STD cases, etc... Marriage was a strong bond until the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act that has enabled 'No-Fault' divorces. Until these acts were ratified by states, you had to prove in a court of law that your spouse had vialated a number of statues. Now you can in nearly ever state perform a no-fault divorce where the 'relationship is no long viable'. This opened the door to people just getting bored and getting divorced. 60 years ago it was a trial to get divorced, now its just attorney's filling out paperwork. Again, the moral decline of the United States.
Unfortunately there is no scientific, religious, or social foundations that permit or deny gay marriage. Infact, those who choose to bring up religion in this debate are misinformed and are speaking just to speak. In a book by Bob McCann, entitled Justice for Gays and Lesbians, it outlines many major Christian doctrines including the Episcopalean, Methodist, Catholic, Presbytarian, and Baptist. In which, there is only one modern religious doctrine (what pastors preach about) that doesn't accept or slide by the gay marriage issue. In the Methodist doctrine, it is elicitally written that no pastor shall ever preach on the subject of marriage as to not offend or deny religious freedoms to those of same-sex beliefs. The Episcopal church is is divided currently and is on the verge of becoming to seperate churches. The Catholic religion is the only religion that currently denys same-sex marriage to its members and deems it unholy; as a sin. With the new Pope in power as a stronger reconstructionist, it will get stricter not more open. So to say that because the bible restricts gay marriage is defying all current religions with the exception of Catholicism. No bases for change on that belief only.
In that case, what does the constitution say? Well, honestly it says nothing. When the constitution was written, this was not of a concern. Homosexuality was strictly prohibited and those taking parts in acts would have been exiled or killed. No need to write what isn't needed. Post 1950's/Vietnam, you can view the 'slippery slope' of more liberal thinking. Before the 1920's enlightenment period (time of the 'city' girl), woman stayed at home, raised children, cooked, cleaned, all the goods. During the period from the 20's to the 60's woman in middle to lower class positions started taking part-time working roles (less then 20% of the woman population) to help during the depression and to seek personal freedoms 'apparantly' denied to them before. After the 'hippie' era and the civil rights movement, people of all beliefs and thoughts sought equality. First woman were no longer 'thought' of to stay at home, but they were told they had to work. African Americans sought equality through affirmitive action which has all but backfired. Televisions and such shows have shown a significant decline in social capital and have began to alter peoples beliefs. 1972's ruling of Roe v. Wade set foot to the liberal thought movement across America since the courts were now willing to hear traditionally state controlled issues. Even before that, the creation of the 14th Amendment established the ability for reformist or sociological justices to read into the constitution how they wanted. In particular, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment has been the brain child for this liberal thought -
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.
So what is life, liberty, and property? Following Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court set the precedent that there were certain unalienable rights, such as undefined rights that were suitable to life, liberty, or property. This essentially opened the door for anyone with enough support and evidence to determine it legal. The gay marriage subject though is one the Supreme Court has not touched, and doubtfully will anytime in the near future. Why? Well there are three ways the Supreme Court rules on cases; Rational Basis - an overwhelming change in thought, evidence, or information. In the interest of the states, Strict Scrutiny - compelling governmental interest for the welfare of the people; not just legitmate reasoning, but compelling, and Middle-Level review for items that aren't compelling, but more than legitimate. The same-sex marriage falls only under the rational basis category making it in no interest for the Supreme Court to rule on. In order for it to be ruled, they would only accept strict scrutiny in which there was compelling interest. Thus they have left it up to the states under the 10th Amendment, which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
So it remains in the hands of the states where strict constructionist judges rule that it is immoral and defies the sanctity of marriage. Other reformist judges such as in Massachusets will rule that its in the best interest of the people to make it legal. Same basis for decriminalizing marijuana, banning partial-birth abortions, ecettera. So if your writing on the basis of the law, there you have it.
So now, my opinion - marriage was and will always be defined as the union of a man and a woman. The thought of homosexuality is irrational and goes against human nature. We as humans have the ability to process thoughts and the thought of two physically identicle men partaking in sexual actions goes against human rationality. The number one identified reason for homosexuality is through child raising, in which the highest rate of homosexual men come from intercity, single parent (mother in particular), lower to middle class families with more than one child. Infact that numbers of middle to upper class traditional family households have the lowest numbers of homosexual children. My thoughts are that the children are lashing out or seeking differences to standout since they lacked the care and nurturing needed as a child. Furthermore, it goes against humanity. The sole nature of animals, humans included, is the reproduce. It is imbedded in our DNA that we have one goal in life, to procreate. Thus the reason why homosexual couples still have to partake in sexual activities. There is a reason why the womans vagina has natural lubrication and receptors to make sex both easy and pleasurable. The anus has neither of those. The Merian-Websters dictionary was amended in 2002 to include the same-sex marriage clause, just as 'bling-bling' is a word amongst others. If you can take that dictionary seriously, then you are prime example of the liberal thought evolution of America. People have the ability to make choices for themselves, but with the decline of morals in America, people are making more and more of the wrong ones. Look at the lending problems, abortion problems, STD cases, etc... Marriage was a strong bond until the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act that has enabled 'No-Fault' divorces. Until these acts were ratified by states, you had to prove in a court of law that your spouse had vialated a number of statues. Now you can in nearly ever state perform a no-fault divorce where the 'relationship is no long viable'. This opened the door to people just getting bored and getting divorced. 60 years ago it was a trial to get divorced, now its just attorney's filling out paperwork. Again, the moral decline of the United States.
Comment