Freedom of Speech Article

[Shandriz]

Right. So a few of you wanted to see the article I might be getting published (although I'm not holding my breath-- AJC is really conservative).

NOTICE: I want to make it known, though, that this isn't meant to offend anyone. It is from a NEUTRAL viewpoint, and I'm not going to say whether or not it reflects my own personal views on the subject at hand.


Whenever the debate over gay rights comes into question, almost all arguments, at least in the younger generations, center around moral and religious beliefs. They argue whether it's moral or immoral to allow such activity, and this can go on for days when one takes into account how different even those who agree with each other's opinions can be.

The fact of the matter is, though, that arguing religious beliefs in accordance with the question as to whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry only hinders their argument more than it helps it. Why? Constitutionally speaking, the government doesn't have any right to decide based on religious beliefs. The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof) of the first amendment indicate that the government cannot force the beliefs of one religion upon the whole of society. It indicates that showing favour to any one religion is against the laws set forth by the forefathers.

Of course, the majority of the debate in the more politically savvy arena is centered on a completely different matter-- if same-sex couples are allowed to marry officially, they get the same benefits as opposite-sex couples. This means that taxpayer money will go to a cause that some people feel is morally wrong. -This- is the real reason gay rights is still being debated.

The fact of the matter is, however, that it would be unconstitutional -not- to allow it. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth Amendment (Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.) indicates that no person should be denied basic rights, such as those to marry, no matter what their religious or moral beliefs. Therefore, same-sex couples -should- be able to marry, within the constitution.

There are two ways that Congress is likely to take this information. They could either take it to the courts and officially recognize same-sex marriages, granting them the same rights, priveleges, benefits and responsibilities of opposite marriages, or officially banish them. They could also, however, leave it up to the state governments, forgoing making an official decision as to whether same-sex marriages should be allowed.
If they decide to leave it up to the states, there is -still- going to end up being a matter discussed in courts. This would be the discussion of the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Section 1. 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. Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.) which deals with the question of whether, if one state recognizes a marriage, the other states would have to recognize that marriage as well should the couple move to a state banning same-sex marriages.
Either way, the court is going to end up making a lot of people unhappy. Here's to hoping they don't let the loudest people effect the facts, however.

[Reverend]

As a constituional argument, it holds up really well. I like the flow of it as a debatable point. Everyone really should read this to see what the main thing going on about the debate is snagged up on

[Tobias]

i think that it was written well, with a good arguable thesis and good supporting points. I also like the research that went into some of the points of interest; those really help to exemplify the points that you are making, and assist in your argument.

I liked it, and i thought it was quite informative.

[Silver Adept]

A good argument to put forward, and some of those points are ones that I've considered when trying to determine whether the government has a leg to stand on in denying marriage to homosexuals. I think that you've gone quite a ways in proving that they do not, constitutionally. We'll see whether or not the government actually decides to follow it in the time to come.

[Shandriz]

Thanks, guys ^_^ Here's to hoping it's good enough!

[Shino]

all I have to say is...