Marriage is a social contract; rings are its symbols, its standard contract language is "to love and honor" each other "in sickness and in health," it's sealed with signatures on the license (and sealed with a kiss). As with any social contract it contains rights and privileges most of which are defined in state and federal law. While household finances are dealt with privately, they become of interest to the government, via courts, when a dissolution of the contract is sought. Income tax rates depend on marriage status, as can heiritable rights upon the death of one partner. In medical and end-of-life decisions, marriage status is very much a point of order. So why is it acceptable to deny these rights to only certain couples?
The Fourteenth Amendment states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridged the privileges or Immunities of citizens of the United States;...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Its final section states: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." (The amendment also prohibits holding any office, "civil or military" if one has engaged in insurrection or rebellion --sedition --but that's another topic.) Admittedly, the Fourteenth mostly deals with choosing elected officials, but Section 1 is clear about to whom rights are guaranteed. So I ask, again, why is it acceptable to deny rights to only certain couples?
Same-sex couples are gaining legal recognition, state by state, but I have no doubt there would howls about states' rights if the US Congress tried to pass a federal law declaring equal status (read: due equal rghts) to same-sex unions. Never mind that the bigots, homophobes, and religious right praised the federal, wrongly-named (and recently declared unconstitutional) Defense of Marriage Act. It seems there isn't a problem with the feds usurping states' rights when it fits certain ideology.
US Constitution:
Article IV
Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2
1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
"As a general rule, each state's marriage laws provide for reciprocity with the marriage laws of other states. In short, a validly married couple under the laws of the state in which they were married will be treated as validly married if they relocate to another state. However, this general principle of reciprocity is being steadily overturned with respect to civil unions." ("Legal Defense of Gay Marriage" by Sean Carter, whosoever.org)
Apparently I need a reputable constitutional scholar (those from Liberty university and Anton Scalia need not apply) to explain why marriage reciprocity doesn't pass constitutional muster. In those states where civil rights are honored, the legally filed records of same-sex unions fit "public Acts,Records, and judicial Proceedings" in Article IV. I think these unions also are covered by another part of the Constitution.
With the exception of simple homophobes, the objection to same-sex unions is based on religious beliefs. "But homosexuality is just wrong," they may cry, but when pressed as to why, the vast majority would probably boil it down to some god's law (usually the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible). That would make it covered by the First Amendment and laws barring religious discrimination.
"It isn't natural!" Except it is. Studies have put the figure at 10% though for a broad definition of the term. Census figures put it at about 4%. The only agreement is that the number depends on how one defines homosexual (include bisexual?, etc) and that science recognizes that a percentage of homosexuals has always existed in the human population. And humans aren't alone.
"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman,who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition. (from "1,500 animal species practice homosexuality," posted in: Medical Science News, published on October 23, 2006; news-medical.net). So there. Not an unnatural act, just one exhibited by a minority of the human population.
Minorities: another category protected by law....
What Ted Cruz Doesn’t Want You to Know (via Moyers & Company)
