Is it
constitutional to deny same sex couples the right to a civil union? Though, to
some, this question may seem to be a cut and dry situation, I assure you that it
is not. So let’s ask ourselves this: Is it acceptable that tax paying citizens
are denied the same rights as other tax paying citizens based on what sex their
partner is? Because some states are fighting to allow this, there must be some
reason it is not as simple as “no it is not”. In this paper I will be exploring
the answer to this question and what makes its answer not so cut and dry.
The constitution
of the United States of America, Amendment 14; Section 1 reads, “ 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; not deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
All citizens of
the United States (regardless of skin color or sex or any other factor other
than nationality) will not fall victim to a state’s law, which might prevent
the citizen from life and liberty. The tricky part is that individual states
have laws in which these rights are denied. Branching from this Federal
Constitution are the individual State Constitutions. The issue of federal civil
rights being upheld is found in these individual State Constitutions.
On
December 20, 2013 Supreme Court Judge Shelby overruled Utah’s Amendment 3.
Stating that it is unconstitutional to deny same sex couples the right to a
civil union, in the state of Utah. The state’s governor, Governor Herbert,
fought this ruling and issued a stay on the bill until they could have a due
process (Ford.) Each state has its own constitution. For instance, the state of
Utah’s constitution states that, “Marriage consists only of the legal union
between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be
recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal
effect.”
With an
understanding of Utah’s State Constitution it is understandable why the
governor might be fighting this ruling. His position is to uphold the
constitution of the state. Without there being a law passed to change the
current law in Utah, he will most likely do what ever it takes to prevent the
federal government from interfering with the people of Utah’s vote. According
to the Huffington Post, 950 licenses were issued to same sex couples who took
advantage of this ruling between, Friday December 20th and Thursday
December 26th. That is just six days and almost a thousand same-sex
couples. With a statistic like that, it is curious why the law hasn’t changed.
History has
something to teach us as a society. Society can learn from its past experiences
in dealing with civility issues. Until
the 1970’s Federal law allowed husbands to rape their wives because it defined
a wife as property owned by the husband (Ball pg 36). This provides just one devastating
example of the need for our society to learn from past civility issues. The
issue that we are currently facing is still regarding marriage but now we are
needing to redefine who can get married.
In
Howard Ball’s book, The Supreme Court in the Intimate Lives of Americans, he
states that, “marriage law in the United States originated in the canon law of
the Catholic Church. This law, evolving into the English common law, did not
require an actual ceremony or religious sacrament. The United States common law
adopted the canon and civil laws of England, as administered in the British
ecclesiastical courts and patterned its marriage laws after British model” (pg
35). Some of the ideas that come to mind when contemplating the definition of
marriage might be ideas of a spiritual joining, a contract between two people,
a social institution, maybe even a business exchange. Because marriage is all
of this and so many other different meanings, the government must determine
what then marriage means legally.
Despite
the differing laws, the Federal Constitution can be viewed as an
all-encompassing umbrella of the individual state Constitutions. Going back to
the main question whether it is constitutional to deny same sex couples the
right to a civil union, the answer is simply that it is not. Despite the
complications and differences that might arise from state to state, there is an
overall superior ruling, which is the final say. That final say is the Federal Constitution.
In conclusion, it seems that the answer is as cut and dry as the question appears,
but the implementation of the law is, however, the complicated factor.
Works Cited
Ball, Howard. The Supreme
Court in the Intimate Lives of Americans. New York: New York University
Press, 2002. Print.
Ford, Zack. “How a Federal Judge in
Utah Adeptly Dismantled all of the Arguments Against Marriage Equality.” Thinkprogress.org. Center for American
Progress, 21 Dec. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
Lang, Melissa. “Same-sex Couples
Shatter Marriage Records in Utah.” The
Salt Lake Tribune. A MediaNews Group Website, 26 Dec. 2013. Web. 1 Mar.
2014.
Image Cited
Fusaro, Kim. “16 Fabulous Red
Marriage Equality Profile Photos on Facebook.” Glamour. Conde Nast, 28 Mar. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2014
