Last week thousands of gay and lesbian individuals marched on Washington D.C. petitioning and demanding of their representatives, and most importantly President Barack Obama, to expand the liberties that many heterosexual individuals enjoy to their own community — especially in regard to marriage. However, likely there will be a continuous heated battle between the anti-gay marriage movement and the pro-gay marriage movement for decades to come.
But that can be all avoided if the LGBT community actually begins to respect rights of the state. First of all, marriage in no manner whatsoever is a “civil right.” The only civil rights that an individual in the United States has are those guaranteed in the Constitution.
Marriage is not one of those rights that everyone can enjoy; it is a matter determined by the 10th Amendment.
If it is really a matter of civil rights as pro-gay marriage advocates say, then perhaps we should extend that freedom to other disenfranchised groups. For example, in Arizona first cousins cannot marry unless they are both over the age of 65 or it can be proven that one is infertile.
Moreover, let’s even go to the extreme and say that the rights of the North American Man/Boy Love Association, which seeks to overcome laws restricting relations between consenting men and minor boys, should be respected as well. Clearly we can see what happens when we try and legislate our morality on a national level. The right of the people of the states should not be infringed when deciding these social and moral issues.
Moreover, according to Campaign for Liberty, Congressman Ron Paul’s activist group, marriage rights as we know them today were formed primarily at the turn of the 20th century as a result of health reasons and the anti-polygamy movement.
The only course of action the U.S. should avoid taking is the all-or-nothing national decision. The issue is too important for the federal government to decide; individual states should be given the choice — no national ban and no national mandate.
Moreover, because the U.S. is made up of many diverse moral communities and with a social issue like homosexuality or gay marriage, people have never agreed and probably never will — and what most Americans do not understand is that under our system of government we do not have to. We have the freedom to live in a state that accommodates more of our own personal needs whether they are tax, socially or legally related.
Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit clause (Article IV, Section 1) does not require states to recognize one another’s marriages. Therefore, the right of a state to choose its own marriage laws is and should remain entirely independent of other states.
Ultimately, the problem with nationalization can be clearly seen with the lasting effect of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
Arguably, had the Supreme Court not intervened and federally mandated the right for an abortion, today it would be legal in some states but not all. Rather, what we have created is a cultural schism that has left a deep moral cut on our country.
Reach Joseph at joseph.hermiz@asu.edu.
