The issue of gay marriage has been receiving a lot of press lately. After a revolutionary court case in Massachusetts that allowed gay marriage. The issue has gone from a rarely spoken topic to a media target. Since there has been so much publicity the majority of Americans have begun to demand laws to prevent a violation of what they hold to be a sacred conservative union. Congress wants to go as far as to propose a constitution amendment preventing the legality of gay marriage. The problem that occurs is if Massachusetts allows gay marriage, then all states have to recognize this contract because of the “Full Faith and Credit Clause”. Therefore many opponents of gay marriage feel that a federal decree is necessary in order to prevent radical judges from allowing gay marriages in their state, thus forcing other states to recognize it. These opponents feel that because marriage is a sacred precept that has been around for thousands of years, and because the vast majority of Americans are against gay marriage, that a constitutional amendment would be in the countries best interest. Of course what many people fail to realize is what the constitution real purpose is, why the majority doesn’t necessarily mean the correct course of action, and how the standard idea of a family is not set in stone.
Adding an amendment is wrong for many reasons. The most important reason against adding an amendment for this issue is it violates the basic concept behind the constitution. Virtually all amendments that have been added to the constitution have either been to increase the amount of rights of the citizens or to fix inherent flaws in the government. The only time an amendment has taken away rights was the 18th amendment, which in the end needed to be canceled out by an additional amendment. By creating a new rule that would prevent gay marriage, the American government would be modifying the constitution to restrict the rights of its citizens.
Some may see that a good reason to make this a new law is because the vast majority of America are against this issue, and there needs to be some measure to prevent judges from legalizing this situation. This argument is faulty because a very specific reason the courts are in place is to protect the rights of the minorities from the majorities. The majority of the people several years back believed interracial marriage was wrong. Going even further back American citizens felt slavery was justified. Just because the majority of the population is against an issue doesn’t mean they are correct. The rights and the wishes of the majority should always be observed, but not at the expense of the rights and freedoms of the minorities. These are the freedoms the constitution should protect for everyone.
Some argue that it is necessary to create an amendment, because regardless of the fact that it would restrict the freedoms of some people, the results would be more valuable in the case of children and the home. The entire purpose of Marriage is for procreation and to create a stable family. Many feel that the only good home for a child is one with a mother and a father, and this is the reason that gay people should not be allowed to marry and raise a family. Of course this argument is easily defeated because there are many examples of straight people who marry who are incapable of having children. Just because they can’t have children together doesn’t mean they should prevented from getting married. Also with current medical technology it is possible to have a biologically related child in a family, even if the couple is gay. Also while an optimal family situation is one with a mother and father, there is no law against single parent households, so why should there be one when there happens to be two fathers or two moms.
The constitution was deliberately made difficult to modify because it should only be changed because of “great and extraordinary occasions” The constitution should only be amended if it expands on the rights of everyone. It should not be changed because of the sudden influx of attention on whatever hot issue exists at the time. The courts exist as an impartial ruler in our society. We need this body because the majority of the citizens are not always capable of making the morally correct decision. Banning gay marriage is laughable. The idea that a family is only mom, dad and 2.5 children is constantly being rejected in today’s society. Massachusetts made a good first step for our country, with time states will realize the ludicrousness of restricting the rights of their citizens over a non issue such as gay marriage, and understand just how unnecessary a new amendment would have been.