The Great Debate |
|
|---|---|
DOMA strike down: Good or bad? |
|
Repeal a step in the right direction |
U.S. needs to define marriage |
 On June 26, after 16 years of discrimination, the Supreme Court deemed Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. The Act strictly defined a legal marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The court also refused to uphold California’s Proposition 8, which only recognized opposite-sex couples as legitimate marriages. The legislation discriminated against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) citizens and both pieces of legislation ran against the grain of our constitution by segregating the rights of our citizens. Needless to say, the Supreme Court made the right decision. Now the choice is up to the individual states to formally recognize same-sex couples and allow same-sex marriage. And, according to Reuters, there are currently 13 states (including Washington, D.C.) that have legally done so. It is enlightening to see these states stepping up to the right side of history by legalizing same-sex marriage. It will be interesting to see if Utah follows the positive trend sweeping across the nation, or continues to rule from the stagnant position of religious dogma. It is vital for Utah lawmakers to realize that democracy transcends from the separation of church and state. Legalizing same-sex unions does not interrupt opposite-sex unions. Marriage is a private matter. Gay and lesbian partners should have the same rights and freedoms to lifestyle and family as their straight counterparts. If Utah wants to keep up with American civil rights values, it must cease ruling from the church pulpit. It is exhaustive to hear Bible quotes interfering with governance. Religious texts of any sort must never dictate legislative decisions. Organized religion is the largest tool of decay for freedoms and human rights, not just in the U.S., but all around the world. Opponents of same-sex marriage rely on archaic and absurd arguments. Some believe that allowing same-sex marriage will be a gateway to legalizing polygamy or animal marriage. Others believe it is an offense to voting rights (California voted for Proposition 8, therefore it should remain a state law). But same-sex couples who practice legal relationships deserve the same rights as opposite-sex legal relationships. Neither can legally marry someone underage, or engage in violence or abuse. In fact, Medscape reports that children with lesbian parents are less likely to be sexually abused. Religion plays a big part in the problem. Utah is one of only two states that refuse to offer any civil rights for the LGBT community. However, several other states lack respect for their minorities too. In the Bible Belt, bulldog lawmakers have threatened to force Christianity onto the entire state population to discourage “homosexual tendencies” in their citizens. That unreasonable and unconstitutional theology is absurd, as is Proposition 8. The beauty of the U.S. is our diversity. Our legacy should reflect equal rights for all people. The freedom of religion and from religion, is what makes America great. If religion seeps into the implementation of laws, we will fracture our foundation. Therefore every American should be guaranteed the same rights — including the right to marry. According to the democratic principles of the Declaration of Independence, the pursuit of happiness is a right for every American. And happiness means different things to different people. Ruling DOMA as unconstitutional is a step towards that universal happiness. |
 Many Americans have heard about — and have a strong opinion about — the Supreme Court decision regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). On June 26, the nation’s highest court declared the Act unconstitutional.This decision is seen as a tremendous victory for same-sex couples nationwide who desire the same rights and protections as opposite-sex couples. According to Freedom to Marry, a campaign to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, gay and lesbian couples want to get married “for similar reasons as anyone who wants to marry.” They want to be able “to stand in front of friends and family to make a lifetime commitment to the person they love.” While there is nothing inherently wrong with this desire, there are things that the Supreme Court did not take into consideration in its ruling, which makes the decision too rash and therefore incorrect. For one, the court failed to consider the potential repercussions of striking down the definition of the term “marriage.” According to DOMA, marriage is a “legal union between one man and one woman.” By eliminating this definition, the Supreme Court has opened the door for other “nontraditional” couples, who can also make an argument based on love, to have all the benefits of a married couple. The Huffington Post reported that Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), in a speech on the house floor on June 28, suggested that the Supreme Court’s decision opened the door to legalizing polygamy. Gohmert said, “Once you move marriage beyond the scope of a man and a woman, you really don’t end up with a good place to put a limit.” While Gohmert’s point is a little radical, he brings up a good point. Where does the Supreme Court draw the line now that the definition of marriage has been struck down? Should the Supreme Court allow polygamous or incestuous relationships, and relationships with minors to stand based on the argument of love and the desire for commitment? Many would answer with a resounding no, but without a definition of the term “marriage,” it is difficult to deem anything unworthy of the distinction. Because of this, the Supreme Court acted rashly and impulsively in its decision to strike down Section 3 of DOMA. Section 3 should have been revised to include same-sex couples, not struck down completely, because it leaves any couple free to argue for marriage on the basis of love, even though love is not the only thing to take into consideration. Therefore, it is necessary for the U.S. government to have a working definition of the term “marriage” in order to provide married couples with the rights and protection they deserve. |
The Great Debate: DOMA strike down: Good or bad?
August 1, 2013
0