Paper I wrote for political science — Sunday, December 10, 2006
I forgot some things, and it's not totally clear, but I got a 33.5 our of 40
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional due to the full faith and credit clause. Some people will claim that the full faith and credit clause doesn’t hold up due to the exclusionary rule that is usually acknowledged. The exclusionary rule allows states to make some exceptions when it comes to giving full faith and credit to other state’s laws and documents. Various people will claim that states have the right to choose what marriages they give credit to because of that rule. Their reasons for the exceptions are that it violates their state policies, and constitutions, and that they have a compelling in interest for not allowing individuals of the same sex to get married. Since states say they have both policies, state constitutional amendments and compelling interests to not allow individuals of the same sex to get married, they are well within reasons to not give full faith and credit to marriage licenses given to individuals of the same sex given by another state, and thus the Defense of Marriage Act is still constitutional even with the Full faith and credit act. Reasons that the Full faith and credit clause still applies are: 1- The laws, policies, constitutional amendments that they states have made are unconstitutional by the United states constitution. The United states constitution being the law of the land, the states’ individual laws, rules, policies, and constitutional amendments, are invalid and hold no credence. 2- The states have NO real compelling interests to not hold valid other states marriage licenses.
Many people talk about how the exclusionary rule has been long established, and that the Defense of Marriage Act falls under it. However, as in the miscegenation laws, it can’t be held under the exclusionary rule. Laws and policies that are unconstitutional under the United States constitution can’t be used to prohibit something, since they shouldn’t exist in the first place, the United States Constitution being the supreme law of the land. Various states supreme court justices have found anti same-sex marriage laws were unconstitutional by their state constitutions. They were found to be unconstitutional by basis of sex-discrimination. The state constitutions were worded similar to the United states constitution. The following is a list of summery of state supreme court decisions:
Same-sex marriage in the courts-
The courts have ruled on same-sex marriage in these states:
Hawaii: The state Supreme Court ruled in 1993 that the marriage exclusion was unconstitutional sex discrimination unless the state could show that it was vitally needed for the public welfare. A trial judge ruled in 1996 that no such need had been shown and that the state must allow same-sex marriages. Voters amended the state Constitution in 1998 to prohibit same-sex marriages.
Alaska: A judge ruled in February 1998 that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional sex discrimination and violated the fundamental right to marry. Voters amended the state Constitution in November 1998, overturning the ruling.
Vermont: The state Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that the marriage law violated a state constitutional provision entitling all residents to "common benefits'' and ordered the state to grant lesbian and gay couples the same rights and benefits as married couples. The ruling gave the Legislature the option of approving civil unions, which were enacted in 2000.
Arizona: The state Court of Appeals upheld Arizona's marriage law in October 2003, ruling that it served the state's interest in encouraging procreation and child-rearing within a marital relationship.
New Jersey: A judge upheld the state's marriage law in November 2003, ruling that the right to marry applied only to traditionally defined marriage. A Court of Appeals recently heard arguments in an appeal by same-sex couples.
Massachusetts: The state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that the marriage law denied same-sex couples equal protection of the law. The court ruled in February 2004 that civil unions would not be an adequate substitute. The ruling allowing marriages took effect, May 17, 2004. Opponents hope to win legislative approval for a 2006 constitutional amendment that would overturn the ruling.
Oregon: A judge declared the state's marriage law unconstitutional on the grounds of sex discrimination in April 2004 and ordered the state to recognize 3,000 marriages performed by officials in Multnomah County. But it left the Legislature the option of approving civil unions. The ruling was on appeal in November 2004 when voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Washington: Judges ruled the state marriage law unconstitutional in August and September 2004. An appeal was argued this month in the state Supreme Court.
Indiana: A Court of Appeals upheld the state's marriage law in January 2005, ruling that it served state's interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples to raise children in marriage.
New York: A judge ruled the state's marriage law unconstitutional in February 2005, saying it discriminated on grounds of sexual orientation. An appeal is pending.
California: San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer on Monday ruled the state's marriage law unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of sex and violates the right of individuals to choose a marital partner.
Opponents of same-sex marriage say the rulings rest on shaky ground by relying on sex discrimination.
"The laws against interracial marriage were designed to say that whites are superior to African Americans,'' said attorney Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund, which is helping to defend the California law. "Here, the marriage law is not designed to say that one sex is inferior.''
( http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/20/MNGO6BS9UF1.DTL )
Some people say that first we need to decide whether sexual orientation is a group, and then decide whether it is protected or not under the constitution. This is not necessary, since sex, is a group already established, and already is protected under the constitution. Arguments that discs crimination is legal as long as it’s not based on one being superior to the other one are ridiculous. It is similar to the separated but equal attitude of the “ Jim Crow “ laws. That argument would allow people to discriminate against men, or women, or any race, and treat them however the want, as long as their reasoning wasn’t based on the belief that one was superior to the other one. I could acknowledge that black people weren’t inferior to white people, but not hire them on the basis that I just don’t like them. As long as my reason wasn’t that they were inferior, it would be ok to discriminate against them. The same goes with hiring women. I could say that my reasoning isn’t based on that they are inferior, but that I don’t like them, or that it’s not traditional for them to work, or work in whatever job field. I could base my reasons for not hiring a female mechanic, referee, construction worker, soldier, or any other traditionally male dominated jobs on the basis of it’s not traditional, or it’s not their natural place to do so. These reasoning for the basis of hiring, or treating people differently have nothing to do with one sex being superior to another sex, but have still not been granted validity for using in making decisions when hiring, or making laws. Discrimination could legally run rampant everywhere if it was made legal as long as it wasn’t on the basis of assuming one group was superior or inferior to the other group.
Another reason why people think that the exclusionary rule would apply in this case are the state’s “ compelling interests “. Laws that prohibit the marriage between people of the same sex are mostly religiously, and traditionally motivated. People don’t want people of the same sex to get married due to religious reasons, which shouldn’t be considered into making laws. Most people realize this, and that is when they make up ridiculous reasons and somehow try to stand by them with a straight face. Most of these “ compelling interests “ are made up bullshit reasons why they don’t want people of the same sex to be able to get married. One of these reasons of “ compelling interest “ is -
Marriage between a man and a woman, unlike any other sexual relationship, furthers society’s profound interest in the only sexual relationship that has the biological potential for reproduction: union between the two sexes. Homosexual couplings do not have the biological potential for reproduction: children are possible only by means of legal intervention (e.g., adoption) or medical technology (e.g., artificial insemination or cloning). The potential procreative power of a union between a man and a woman is the basis for society’s compelling interest in preserving – and defining – marriage. ( http://www.defendmarriage.org/defendmarriage/background/tribune.cfm ) Basically saying that the sole reason for marriage is having kids and raising them.
This reason has several issues. Using that thinking, they should screen the people who they are considering giving marriage licenses to for infertility. If marriage is solely for procreation purposes, then people who are sterile, and old people, shouldn’t be able to get married either. They don’t do any of this type of screening though. People who are using the argument that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, should be trying to pass laws that prevent people who can’t have children from getting married. They could pass those laws without discriminating against sexes, and it would in effect outlaw same-sex marriages at the same time. Since they aren’t trying to make laws like that, their arguments of marriage is for procreation do not result in a compelling interest. Instead, it’s simply a bullshit reason they are trying to use to outlaw something they don’t like. The other aspect of this is that there is no law saying that people who are married have to have children. If marriage is for the purpose of having children, then why don’t we have a law requiring people who are married to have children? It seems like if marriage is for procreation, and that’s why married people receive benefits from the state and federal government because of that, they shouldn’t receive those benefits unless they actually have children. People who are married but who don’t have children still receiving these benefits contradicts the idea that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, and since gay people can’t procreate they shouldn’t be able to have those benefits.
Other people with similar views.
Infertile Couples
First, if we were to take this premise seriously, we would have to radically change marriage laws.
No infertile couples would be allowed to marry — this would include both younger people who are infertile due to health issues as well as older people who are infertile due to age. Who would agree to that?
It is curious that the opprobrium heaped upon gays who want to marry is not also directed upon elderly people who want to marry, indicating that the problem cannot possibly stem from people’s disapproval of a couple that won’t be having children. Consider people’s reactions when someone gets married for reasons other that love, like citizenship, money, or social status. This indicates that society regards love as the basis for marrying, not producing children.
If we were to enforce the idea that marriage exists for the sake of having and raising children, wouldn’t we prohibit couples from remaining childless voluntarily? Even if we didn’t outlaw both contraception and abortion, we would have to take steps to ensure that all married couples not be childless: if they won’t produce their own kids, they will have to adopt some of the many orphaned and abandon children currently without stable homes and families. Since we don’t see anyone arguing for such outrageous measures, we must conclude that opponents of same-sex marriage don’t take that principle as seriously as they seem; and because such measures are so outrageous, we have good reason not to take it seriously either. ( http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageKids.htm ) Austin Cline,
Another reason people use as a compelling interest is that same-sex marriage should be outlawed is that it isn’t ideal for raising children. People say that one of the reasons state’s give married people rights and privileges is that it creates a good environment for the raising of children. They say that same-sex marriages don’t give the same optimal environment for raising productive children. This raises the bar even higher. They are saying you shouldn’t be able to get married if it won’t facilitate the best possible environment for raising children. They do not screen marriage licenses for things that indicate that the people getting married will create the optimal environment for raising children. We allow poor people to get married who live in bad neighborhoods. It’s not illegal for other people to get married who don’t have the optimum environments to raise children. It’s also not illegal for single parents to raise their children. Who really has the ideal environment to raise their children, and how do we really define it? The “ ideal “ environment may really even not be so ideal. The idealistic environment where kids live the “perfect life “ may actually inhibited the children by not allowing them challenges to overcome. Children who overcome adversity are stronger than those who don’t encounter any. Problems are good, they make us learn things, and make us stronger, smarter individuals. People who try to use the argument that the compelling interest for outlawing same-sex marriages is that it somehow protects the idealistic environment for raising children obviously aren’t really concerned about the environment of the children. They aren’t trying to make one of the requirements for getting a marriage license that the environment created by the marriage need to be ideal for the raising of children. This makes it obvious that their said “ compelling interest “ to not allow same-sex marriage because it doesn’t make an ideal environment for raising children not only invalid, but dishonest.
There are no states that laws, rules, policies, or amendments that are constitutional, and there are no actual compelling interests that warrant any such laws. There is nothing that gives other states the power to use the exclusionary rule to keep from following the full faith and credit clause. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
There are also no compelling interests that warrant the marriages in other states not being acknowledged in every state. Eventually people will point to Massachusetts as an example of the falsities of the compelling interests that were made up due to people not wanting same-sex couples to get married, much in the same way as they pointed at states which allowed women to vote, when women were fighting for the right to vote.
Other silly reasons and things people have said were compelling interests validating the use of the exclusionary rule.
Top twelve reasons homosexual marriage should not be legal:
Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “seperate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
( http://drmomentum.com/aces/archives/001172.html )
