Gay marriage a civil rights issue
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 6:55PM By Trey Stokes
In 1967’s Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that the states cannot ban interracial marriage.
Before she passed away in 2008, the plaintiff in that case, Mildred Loving, released a public statement about gay marriage: “I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others.
Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life.
I support the freedom to marry for all.”
It is an unfortunate fact that our own state of South Carolina had a constitutional ban on interracial marriage until 1998.
It is also an unfortunate fact that, to this day, we have a constitutional amendment barring gay couples from getting a marriage license.
Not only does this violate my libertarian beliefs, it is my strong opinion that this violates our Federal Constitution. In this column, I will focus on these two aspects.
It has been said already that a main tenet of libertarianism is social freedom, or the freedom to choose how to live one’s life, so long as others are not hurt. So, I pose this question: Who is hurt when two men or two women choose to marry? Whose business is it but theirs? Please, think to yourself and answer honestly. If you are still opposed after thinking about it for a while, I wonder if you would still hold that belief if you spent a day with a committed gay couple.
You would see that gay couples are just as able to love one another as straight couples. Would you, after seeing the love between these two people, be able to say to their face, “I don’t believe you should be able to get married”?
I also think that any legislation barring two consenting adults from entering into a marriage contract on account of gender or sexual orientation is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that “no state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
In addition, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996, circumnavigates Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution which says that individual states must respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” DOMA explicitly mandates that other states do not have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.
As marriage is most definitely a “public act,” this blatantly contradicts the Constitution.
When forming your own opinion on this critical issue, I urge you to take into account the happiness of others and disregard your own personal preconceptions on the issue. By denying others the right to their pursuit of happiness, you preclude your own right.
