I'm currently in FL, and since it is a well-known fact that most Floridians don't know how to vote, we've been sent sample ballots for the upcoming election. The item on everyone's minds is, of course, the Presidential election. (You wouldn't BELIEVE how many 3rd-Party Candidates are on the ballot down here!) But the item no one mentions is Amendment 2 to the State Constitution:
"In as much as a marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."
So here's my question: why are we changing the State Constitution? If it allows for the possibility of same-sex marriage, then isn't that what the original framers intended? Should we really be trying to change that? And if it doesn't allow for that possibility, then why on earth do we need to change it?
2 comments:
It does seem like a weird thing to put into a constitution. I'll offer my reasoning for why people want to add the amendment: It is becoming more and more apparent that it will be the only way to keep homosexuals from getting married.
I'm going to guess that most, if not all, constitutions don't address the issue of marriage. The framers don't give any indications of their intentions through those documents, probably because the possibility of legalized gay marriage had never occurred to them. Of course, the founders were very wise and knew that they could not foresee everything that could happen to this country, so they created an amendment process so that those facing previously unforeseen issues could address them.
Gay marriage is now legal in three states, last I checked: Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut. The reason is that the courts have ruled that marriage can be between more than just a man and a woman. They have decided that that right is expressed in the constitution, and as such, no law can circumscribe that right.
Even though the majority of people oppose gay marriage, once the court has ruled there is no way for them to change that short of changing the constitution. Since amendments are the only way of overcoming court rule, most states have amended (or are amending) their constitution to prevent gay marriage from becoming legal. In a very real sense, activist courts are responsible for the efforts to add marriage amendments. Without them, people would never have felt the need to define marriage in a the constitution, where judges could not have meddled with it.
I'll definitely agree that the framers of the state (and US) constitution(s) never expected to handle the issue of same-sex marriage. And in all honesty none that I know of even mention marriage at all, so it can't be called an expressly-granted "right." But they do generally state that failure to mention certain rights does not mean they are not granted, and that's where the individual right to marry comes from.
But here's my question: State (or Federal) Supreme Courts are responsible for interpreting their respective constitutions. That's their job. If they find that the original framers' "Spirit of Intent" grants a right to same-sex marriage, shouldn't that finding be upheld? SHOULD we be "overcoming court rule"?
Post a Comment