Step
Away from the Constitution
February
26, 2004
By Todd Boehm
Though I may disagree with you, you have a right to your
feelings about homosexuality and marriage. But, with respect
to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, our feelings
are irrelevant. I may not be a constitutional scholar, but
this is not a matter for constitutional consideration.
For more than 200 years, the Constitution has stood as the
guiding doctrine assuring the rights of individual citizens
- all individual citizens. It has in fact been amended to
substantiate and clarify that fundamental imperative. The
Thirteenth, Fifteenth and Nineteenth amendments are clear
examples. So strong in our beliefs of the rights of individuals,
we paid the price of a civil war to establish the Thirteenth.
Consider for a moment what a constitutional definition of
marriage really does. It effectively establishes a new class
of "individual" (forget about the arithmetic of creating one
from two), conveying certain rights to this "individual" by
denying rights to existing, real individual citizens. At no
other time has this government or its citizens amended the
Constitution to create such classes. In fact, the amendments
have specifically sought to see through and strike down social
constructs and institutions to get to the individual. Make
no mistake - marriage is a social construct.
In my reading of the Constitution as it relates to rights,
I see no references of rights conveyed to groups or classes
of people (other than all the people), except for the First
Amendment, which guarantees, among other things, the "right
of people to peaceably assemble". Correct me if I am wrong,
but marriage, almost by definition, is a peaceable assemblage,
without regard to sex, gender, race or other classification
of the individuals. Who is the victim of a gay marriage? Gay
marriage does not deny life to anyone. Gay marriage does not
deny liberty to anyone. Gay marriage does not deny the pursuit
of happiness to anyone. Furthermore, to the extent that the
First Amendment also forbids the government from establishing
a religion, doesn't the incorporation of the socio-religious
concept of marriage serve as a defacto religious establishment?
This is not a matter for Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution
gives no right to the government to serve as the dictator
of self-defined morality. By the Constitution (in tandem with
the Declaration of Independence), the government is established
to protect each citizen's right to "life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness". This is an ill-conceived, short-sighted,
regressive concept born of ignorance and irrational fear (of
what I am not sure). Ignorance and fear are not sufficient
arguments for undoing 200 years of vision.
|