Gay marriage is
constitutional
By Thomas Patteson,
Special to courier-journal.com from the Web June 19, 2005
Louisville, KY -- As you may
remember, in 2004 our state voted on the addition of an amendment to its
Constitution.
Also, last year, our federal government pondered the addition of an amendment to
its Constitution; an event which has only occurred 17 times in the 214 years
since the adoption of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The
proposed amendment banned gay marriage.
Whether you agree or disagree with homosexuality or gay marriage, there is a
greater issue at hand, of profound importance to the future of our country, a
future spoken of throughout the debates in Congress and the states.
The issue at hand is one of respect and equality, as well as this country's
growth in both and other areas throughout history. Also at issue are the
use and misuse of this country's constitution.
The blatant abuse of the Constitution's privileges and corrective processes can
neither be justified by those who have sworn to protect it, nor ignored by the
people it was written to protect.
The government's handling of the proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution is
such an abuse, and it is a degradation of the principles from which this country
was born.
As a history major, I often wonder about the progress of this country and of
this world. For example, whether we have or have not learned from the past
and our mistakes therein. It is while entertaining such a thought that the
United States' political reaction to gay marriage saddens me.
Though the voting down of the federal amendment relieves me, I regret that such
amendments were voted on even at the state level. Not because of my
political beliefs or moral convictions, but because I believe in the sanctity of
something else: the Constitution of the United States.
Not to be toyed with, not to be used as a pawn in an arbitrary game of political
chess, the Constitution is vital to this country's existence and perseverance in
the worst of times. It is an ideal created to lift up all people of this
great country, and amendments are allowed to right the wrongs and correct the
oversights of the founding fathers who crafted it.
This process has been grossly defaced by the drafting and proposed passage of
such an amendment, not to mention the social and civil rights wounds it reopens.
During the debate in the Senate, Rick Santorum (R-Penn.) argued that the
proposed amendment banning gay marriage was neither divisive nor discriminatory.
Rather, "It's just common sense."
Such "common sense" carries the same poisonous origins that bore the rampant
racism that has haunted this country since its inception. Such "common
sense" thus made necessary the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the
Constitution, ones of inclusion, not exclusion. Such "common sense" made
necessary the Civil Rights Act of 1964, erasing the inequality (on the surface
anyway) set forth by centuries of condescension and bigotry. This
amendment isn't common sense. It's not common anything. It's
legalized gay bashing. And it's wrong.
The foundations of this proposed amendment were not the only part of it laced
with injustices. Rather, so was the given rationale for such an amendment.
I can understand and do appreciate the conservatives' concerns about the
structure of the American family and the importance of having both a mother and
father figure present.
But since when was the erosion of the family structure a new problem, not to
mention one brought on by gay marriage? It is neither. And to say
that two men or two women could not raise a child as well as, or better than, a
heterosexual couple is close-minded and unfounded.
It is the same ignorance that determined that a black man wasn't smart enough to
vote, that women should not be paid as much as men for doing the same job, and
it is the same arrogance that made their oppressors think they could get away
with it. Such unfounded claims are, as they have been shown to be in the
past, ignorant, insulting and below the abilities of such distinguished
legislators. Yet, such an issue found its way atop Capitol Hill and onto
our ballots on Election Day, and here we stand today fighting over its validity.
Are we now, if not with this amendment, then with future such proposals, to
begin trying to alienate citizens with the very Constitution created to protect
them? What does it say of us as a people if we are unable or unwilling to
learn from our past? Are we to forget history's lessons and consequences
discovered when we oppressed others? I should hope not.
Lest we forget what it means for all Americans to pursue life, liberty and
happiness within, but not oppressed by, the parameters of the United States
Constitution. Lest we forget, how close we came as a country to limiting
the lives, liberties and happiness of millions of Americans.
And may we never forget how much we must still achieve as a country to abolish
the predispositions of fellow citizens and re-endow those three basic,
inalienable rights to those who have been deprived of them for so long.
The writer is a history senior at the University of Kentucky.
|
