MARRIAGE AND EQUAL PROTECTION: Matt Taylor replies to Jim Henley

I disagree that marriage is not an issue of individual rights. Jim's argument assumes that the US constitution is the ultimate authority on rights, but historically that document has not recognized all the rights that are generally accepted today. For example, the right of women and non-whites to vote were only recognized in later amendments. ...

Personally, I believe that marriage should not be considered something people are given by the government, but rather something they decide to do as individual couples. Banning same-sex marriage restricts the freedom of gay people to enter marriage contracts, and therefore violates their fundamental rights.

Take this analogy: if states refused to recognize changes of residence for non-white persons, it would violate both equal protection and individual rights. Equal protection is violated because the benefits of residency (voting, social services, etc.) are denied to a class of people, but individual rights are also violated because freedom to move from state to state is restricted.

The very thought of a government-issued "interstate relocation license" strikes me as an obvious violation of rights, even if it were issued without any discrimination against particular classes of people. That we don't view a state-issued "marriage license" the same way is just a historical accident.

more
posted by Eve at 2:59 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home