The Llama Ledger - Bard College at Simon's Rock's Student Newspaper

Issue date: 11/5/08 Section: News

I read in the news tonight that Sarah Palin supports a constitutional ban on gay marriage. That's hardly surprising, all things considered, but it did surprise me&mdash the vehemence of the anti-gay agenda in this country always surprises me.

My reaction to reading the words "constitutional ban on gay marriage" was twofold: first, there was the usually largely emotional response of uncomprehending shock I allude to above, but under it, the rational part of my brain raised the following question: is a constitutional ban on gay marriage even constitutional?

I don't mean is it constitutional in the sense of whether it can be done&mdash it can. The Constitution is a living document so, for better or worse, it can be amended. I mean whether it fits with the spirit and the principles of that document and of our legal system, and it does not.

A ban on gay marriage defends neither America nor its people from any tangible threat, nor does it aid Americans in securing their fundamental rights. Therefore, unless it happens to be relevant to how the system of government functions&mdash which it isn't&mdash it does not belong in the document.

It seems pretty well established that individual morality, save where it infringes on another citizen's morality (i.e. morality with regard to theft and murder), is not to be established by the United States government. Contraception and flag burning undoubtedly upset certain segments of the American population, but the Supreme Court has upheld their legality, the first as freedom of expression, the second as right to privacy (I will concede that a right to privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but its implied presence is pretty widely accepted&mdash see Griswold v. Connecticut).

Judicial precedent aside, there is the First Amendment. The fact that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…" implies that Congress will not legislate morality.

I mention freedom of speech and press because one of the traditional reasons for restricting those, other than to prevent the spread of subversive anti-government ideas, is to restrict that which the establishment views as improper. But most important is the fact that the government vows not to interfere in religion.

Here we are assuming that certain notions of morality are integral parts of the religions in question&mdash religions do, after all, usually come with a set of behavioral expectations that can safely be considered moral principles. Thus, in the act of the establishment our banning of a particular religion, a government must also require its people to adopt or reject the moral code that comes with that religion.

I am not saying that the motivation to ban gay marriage at a constitutional level is necessarily the product of religious beliefs&mdash though I suspect in Governor Palin's case it is&mdash but that by forfeiting its right to dictate individual religion, the government forfeits its right to dictate individual morality and thus cannot use it as a justification for the banning of gay marriage.

I do not mean that morality has no place in government. As I said above, it is necessary for the government to take sides on moral issues such as corruption, murder, and theft that can have real and severe impact on third parties.

But since when did gay marriage actually hurt or disadvantage someone who objects to it? It might have made them angry or uncomfortable, but we cannot legislate away everything like that or we would not have a free society. In short, some people do find gay marriage morally wrong, but some people also find the consumption of alcohol or meat morally wrong and those are still legal. But I repeat myself.

Furthermore, the constitution and its amendments address points fundamental to how our political system functions: government structure, taxation, civil liberties, judicial rights, voting rights, etc.

What does it say about us as a society when we put restricting the definition of marriage on the same level as promising equality before the law and establishing policy for elections? Does what is essentially a private matter really warrant so much attention?

Even if you staunchly oppose gay marriage, can you really with a straight face say that its ban is as important to our nation&mdash no, to our nation's underlying principles&mdash as a ban on slavery? And with all those acts that can physically harm another person but are not explicitly referenced in the constitution, should the banning of gay marriage&mdash something that we have established does not kill or maim or steal&mdash be treated as more central to our nation than the banning of them?

Finally, there is the Declaration of Independence. It may not be the Constitution&mdash it may not even be a law&mdash but it does express the underlying beliefs on which our republic and its constitution are based, "that among [our unalienable rights] are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. -That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…"

So, the purpose of government&mdash of our government&mdash is to establish and protect our freedom so that we may enjoy life, liberty, and happiness. It is not to cater to one individual morality's happiness, but to secure liberty so we can find the most happiness as our private principles dictate.

When we discourage our government from securing these rights, what have we done to the foundation of our republic?

---

Contact the author: ahitchins@llamaledger.com

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools