THE STATE of Virginia has taken upon itself to pass an amendment that writes hatred and discrimination into the state constitution with the passage of the Marshall-Newman Amendment. But unless another amendment is passed (one that revokes the first amendment of the United States Constitution), there is no reason why the Supreme Court of the United States should not overturn this measure as unconstitutional.
Currently, marriage dances in both the legal and the religious ballrooms -- welding religion and law together on the issue of gay marriage. The Marshall-Newman Amendment demonstrates the need for a complete separation between the church and the state as our founding fathers intended. American law now facilitates marriage as a legal status, although the institution is clearly a religious matter. The strong participation in government to delegate powers based on a religious institution crosses the bounds and powers of the state.
While the privately organized church has the right to discriminate against any group of people the government's participation in legislating private choices is unconstitutional because it enforces the doctrines of the church on the people, clearly disregarding the First Amendment which states that the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The duty of a democracy is to appease the majority while protecting the rights of the minority, and this amendment fails to uphold the latter.
The institution of marriage must evolve into a completely religious event and the rights that go along with marriage must take on a different name to prevent the government from orchestrating religion. While many right-wing opponents argue that gay marriage is immoral, it is not the duty nor the right of legislators to limit the actions of others based on morals when these actions do not affect other members of society. Churches, under this proposed system, will still hold the right to deny marriage to two people based on its own canon of beliefs, but those persons will not be denied inalienable rights by state or federal government.
Moralistic superiority and outright bigotry remain the only two arguments against gay marriage.A system with two separate entities of marriage guarantees that the rights of individuals are not compromised at the hands of intolerant citizens. There is no societal reason why a gay man cannot visit his partner in the hospital or why insurance companies should deny a lesbian couple spousal status.
Under the guise of children's best interest, proponents of the amendment such as Victoria Cobb of The Washington Post state that, "children are better off in every way in a stable, traditional home with a married mother and father," but this statement disregards the fact that even without legal bonds, homosexual couples can still adopt babies just as single people can adopt children. Given that there are no other rational arguments against gay marriage other than morals and the Bible, the constitution of Virginia should not have the power to discriminate against a set of people. Reminiscent of the Civil Rights Movement, legislators today still support the destruction of individual rights in order to win elections based on prejudiced ideals. This new amendment is not constitutional because it legislates the doctrines of the church without any other reasons to enforce it, and the fact that homosexuality, unlike other church prohibitions such as murder and theft, does not hurt society or individuals in any form.
The fact is that anyone in support of banning civil unions is a bigot who seeks to impose his own set of morals onto those around him. A private organization can define marriage in any twisted ways it desires, but the government cannot legally define marriage (in a religious sense) because of the First Amendment, nor can it ban civil unions. The government has a fundamental responsibility to protect and ensure the rights of the people. Now that the amendment has been passed by uninformed bigots voting with a Bible in one hand and a burning cross in the other, it's time for the "activist judges" that Cobb condemns to step in and protect the rights of American citizens regardless of their private lifestyle choices.
Greg Crapanzano's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at gcrapanzano@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 5 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 5 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
