For the record:
Nov. 20th, 2002 12:02 pmThe United States Supreme Court established in 1923 that the rights to marry and raise children were protected under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. However, the legal system has been involved in marriage since the Lord Hardwick Act passed in 1753. This Act required a license for marriage (meaning that a couple who can not obtain a license may not legally marry), as well as a church ceremony. Many laws passed by states to regulate people's marriages have been struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. Loving v. Virginia, 1967, showed that laws forbidding individuals of different races from marrying violated the Constitution of the United States. Earlier, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) overturned a law that made it difficult for married couples to receive information about birth control. Both of these state laws were struck down as infringements of individuals' rights to marriage and privacy within the marital relationship.
If restricting marriage to race was seen in 1967 as unconstitutional, how is restricting marriage to biological sex constitutional? (Let's leave the Defense of Marriage Act - 1996 - out of this for a minute, because that changes things.) To those people who have remarked to me this morning that no one is being forbidden marriage, they're just being forbidden the choice to marry who they want to, I ask this: if it was still against the law in some states to have an interracial marriage, would you be saying the same thing to a friend of yours in that circumstance? (Well, gee, Bob, the law doesn't say you can't get married, you just can't marry Jane because she's Caucasian. Suck it up!)
Barring same-sex marriage isn't a product of heterosexism, it's a product of sexism. Barring same-sex marriage says that a man can marry a woman, but I can't marry a woman - not because I'm queer, but because I'm a biological female. Discrimination on the basis of sex has also been marked unconstitutional in these United States. Just for the record.
If restricting marriage to race was seen in 1967 as unconstitutional, how is restricting marriage to biological sex constitutional? (Let's leave the Defense of Marriage Act - 1996 - out of this for a minute, because that changes things.) To those people who have remarked to me this morning that no one is being forbidden marriage, they're just being forbidden the choice to marry who they want to, I ask this: if it was still against the law in some states to have an interracial marriage, would you be saying the same thing to a friend of yours in that circumstance? (Well, gee, Bob, the law doesn't say you can't get married, you just can't marry Jane because she's Caucasian. Suck it up!)
Barring same-sex marriage isn't a product of heterosexism, it's a product of sexism. Barring same-sex marriage says that a man can marry a woman, but I can't marry a woman - not because I'm queer, but because I'm a biological female. Discrimination on the basis of sex has also been marked unconstitutional in these United States. Just for the record.