US Constitutionality codifies my democratic right to be different in both ethnicity and ideology. By this right, I celebrate my desire to not think and feel the way that the law dictates. And, in effect, laws that challenge my beliefs are merely opportunities for public disagreement. And, so being, there laws limit not my beliefs but rather only my day-to-day practices.
For much of puritanical American history, homosexuality has been a taboo subject. Often, it has been considered a crime in itself. Starting from Virginia sodomy law prohibiting homosexual intercourse, all fifty states including California had sodomy law. It is only late 1970s when the sodomy laws were repealed. Twenty-two states are still maintaining the law. Yet today, millions of gay and lesbian Americans are not open about their basic rights, they are campaigning for new laws which they say would grant them the same rights accorded to heterosexuals, including the right to marry and protection against discrimination. On the other hand, traditional religious people strongly support for ban on gay marriage and other benefits based on bible. Ironically, both sides strongly want a constitutional amendment in two different ways.
America, with its puritanical origin of religious fundamentalism coupled with it democratic ideals, is oftentimes at odds with itself as its citizenry attempts to define, through legal codification, the definition of "marriage." As part of this schism, there are self claimed devout moral "traditionalists" who adhere to a strict man/woman conception of marriage. Yet, also as a part of American liberalism, there are those who argue for a more tolerant and inclusive ideal. Both sides struggle to come to an amendment to the Constitution to protect their own rights ? gay right under equal protection clause or religious freedom to live on their own belief.
Anti-gay right side's argument is essentially based on morality and individual freedom in a democratic society. Morality and ethics is basis for human behavior, which determine a behavior right or wrong. To be a standard for human behavior, morality and ethic should be based on universal truth and a long established belief to be right or wrong based on the tradition of a human society. As there are many kinds of religions, Americans find the 'universal truth' from renowned or respected books such as bible. Christians believe in bible as their universal truth. Following bible - god's word, they strongly believe that the homosexual love is a serious sin. By American Constitution, they have explicit rights to live under the religious freedom. They advocate their right to live in a society where Christian standard is enforced by law. Their interpretation of the constitution makes them believe allowing homosexuals¡¯ marriage is infringe on their rights of religious freedom.
No headline of Washington Post depicts argument whether murderer and robbers should be protected by Constitution, because the threat of robbery forces people to conclude that robbers committed serious crimes. Without punishment or constraint, they burn people's house and kill innocent people's family members. For there reasons, American government limits the activity of criminals to protect individual freedom. However, the restriction on behaviors of a group of people is only applied when the group takes direct destructive action to members of the society. If not, the restriction infringes individual freedom. Traditionalists campaign to pass laws to ban on gay marriage. As discussed earlier, they claim their right of religious freedom. Do homosexuals restrict people¡¯s freedom as robbers and murderers do if they marry themselves?
Gay marriage opponents' fundamental basis bible is considered as non-changing truth by themselves. The truth of right or wrong oftentimes shifts with altering sensibilities, mores, and lore of cultures. Yet, for the religiously provincial, "Truths" are steadfast and everlasting. Yet, are they really? That is, is Catholic doctrine today on marriage consistent with catholic doctrine of earlier years?
Since Gay right supporters interpret fourteenth amendment of the Constitution applies to homosexuals, they believe that gay couples' relationship is serious enough to receive spousal benefits from government under the equal protection clause. They expanded the meaning of the clause to homosexuals by considering gays as minorities. Advocates of gay rights say sexual orientation, like race or disability, can't be changed, and therefore homosexuals should be protected like any other minority group.
The equal protection clause is initially designed for minorities such as black and woman. Both skin color and gender is inherited qualities from parents. Since the equal protection was passed on the era of discrimination of blacks and woman, the main purpose of law is to protect minorities who has such innate qualities ? skin color or gender. However, homosexual love is a kind of behavior not an inheritance. A human can completely control their behavior.
As stated earlier, morality has profound relationship with the expectation of society members. However, moral standard is not merely descended artifact from ancestors. The standard is reasonable limitation to keep a human society healthy. Thus, there is a certain moral standard line that can¡¯t be crossed even excluding religious beliefs. People don't even imagine an insane world that there exists marriage between animal and human. Gay marriage is in the same context. It is unnatural. Gay men were particularly at HIV risk because of the practice of anal intercourse. Researchers identified the cause as Human Immunodeficiency Virus, or HIV, a virus that destroys the body's immune system. Not only human morality but also consequences such as HIV indicate people the abnormality of having homosexual love.
Both sides are basically arguing about the right of freedom. One side advocates freedom to live on the ethical society corresponding to their religious beliefs. The other side desires to get freedom of living on their own life style. Virginia anti-sodomy law in 1610, supreme courts' three decisions to discriminate against homosexuals, and Defense Marriage Act of 1996 couldn't make homosexuals to abandon their life-style. As Hitler and his Nazi members found impossible to remove Jews in the world with unreasonable and notorious law, and as Communist countries couldn't prevent people from seeking their human right of freedom, a law or restriction can't make a group of people to give up their beliefs. Ever increasing numbers of gays and lesbians in the past decade in America proves that none of the discrimination laws against gays works.
In recent years, many of young couples decide to live together without being married. It seems that marriage is losing its meaning in a practical way. What makes homosexuals consistently seek the legal status of their marriage while legal marriage is only meaningful in a literary way?