Gay marriage not a civil right?

Re: Gay marriage not a civil right? This is in response to Joe Mroszczyk’s letter on 10-31-05 regarding homosexual marriage as a civil right.

What is truly amazing is not Sarah Prager’s dismay at people’s desire to overturn the judicial ruling that same sex couples can marry in Massachusetts, but rather Joe Mroszczyk’s misinterpretation of what are “civil rights” and judicial rights.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is not in the business of making decisions based on the opinions of the people of Massachusetts. That is the job of the Legislature. It is the Supreme Court’s job to be impartial to the whims of the people and to strictly interpret law based on constitutional analysis. In the case of same-sex marriage, they interpreted the Massachusetts state constitution, as is their duty, as allowing same-sex marriage. If the people take issue with this decision they can attempt an appeal or try and alter the state constitution.

Clearly everyone needs a reminder that a “civil right” is defined as one that is protected by the 13th, 14th, and/or 15th amendments. While “civil rights” has become a catch phrase to represent the movement for equal racial rights of the 60s, these amendments are not limited to racial issues. Therefore, it is not the “Gay militants” as Mr. Mroszczyk so kindly describes, that have “hijacked” this phrase, but rather popular culture that has forgotten its true meaning. Therefore, the black population, including the Rev. Jesse Jackson, does not need to approve an issue before an American Citizen claims a violation of his or her constitutional rights. Nor was I aware that a person needs to suffer injustices equal to those suffered by the African Americans in our history in order to feel that their rights have been overlooked, as Mr. Mroszczyk seems to imply.

The United States Supreme Court argued in Skinner v. State of Oklahoma (1942) that marriage is a fundamental and basic human right, and this case could be used as evidence that denying a citizen marriage is in violate of a person’s 14th amendment rights (one of the three amendments listed above as defining a civil right). Additionally, in Loving v. Virginia (1967) the US Supreme Court decided that denying a citizen the right to marry interracially was unconstitutional under the 14th amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Whether any of these arguments would hold up in the United States Supreme Court in the case of same-sex marriage has yet to be decided, but there is a definite argument to be made.

While I agree that opposing homosexual marriage is not an immediate indication of bigotry, arguing that preventing such unions will protect “family structure” is naïve, given the rate of heterosexual divorce, adultery, and pediatric psychological issues at this time. It is not a question of which politicians or which party is in favor of same-sex marriage, but rather one of whether such a right is constitutional, and whether people who are homosexual deserve access to this fundamental human right.

No one asked the people of the United States to vote on whether interracial marriage should be allowed, because it was in clear violation of peoples’ rights. Why should the same judicial consideration be taken from proponents of homosexual marriage? A question of constitutionality belongs to the Courts, not the People.

Gina Nota ginamn@bu.edu 908 705 7250 CAS ’07, SAR ’07, SPH ’08