Every person in this country should be required to read the Constitution in order to graduate from high school.

Maybe then some of those opposed to gay marriages would have some concept of the basic rights it guarantees.

The federal government is attempting to protect society from homosexual marriages via the In Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to ignore marriage certificates of homosexuals from other states. I guess those concerned congressmen just ignored the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

One letter to the editor earlier this year asserted that the only rights we have are those found in the Constitution. This is not quite true. Our rights are determined not only by the Constitution, but also by the Supreme Court. To put it simply, our rights are whatever the Supreme Court tells us they are.

Marriage is one of these rights. The Supreme Court established marriage as a fundamental right in human society in the case of Loving v. Virginia. This case struck down a state law prohibiting interracial marriages.

The Supreme Court also pays careful attention to how states make and apply their laws. The Fourteenth Amendment assures to all people within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

When states make laws based upon racial classifications or laws that restrict fundamental rights, the Court will look upon those laws with strict scrutiny. In other words, a state law must be narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest, and the classification it creates must be necessary.

For other suspect classifications, such as gender, the law must be substantially related to an important government interest. The lowest level of scrutiny requires a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest.

Romer v. Evans held that homosexuals are entitled to the equal protection of the laws. Romer struck down the amendment to the Colorado constitution that would have prohibited anti-discrimination ordinances against homosexuals and would have blocked homosexuals’ access to state courts in discrimination cases.

The Court did not apply the strict scrutiny test because the amendment was not aimed at a fundamental right. While the Court essentially found homosexuals to be within a suspect class, it used the rational basis test to discredit the amendment.

The fundamental right of marriage coupled with the suspect classification of sexual orientation should pry from the Court a higher level of scrutiny than rational basis. If so, gay marriage should be reminded of one justice’s view of equal protection analysis: “Strict in scrutiny, fatal in fact.”

Restrictions on homosexual marriages can survive only if the state can find a government interest of great enough significance to satisfy the courts. Unfortunately, most of the opposition to homosexual marriages is based more on hatred and prejudice than on any rational foundation.

Most of what I have heard coming from homosexual-marriage opponents is that homosexual marriages are simply wrong. They will tear apart the fabric of our society and destroy the institution of marriage.

This is the same thing people said about interracial marriages in the 1950s, only with a tinge of white supremacy. It didn’t stop the Supreme Court from legalizing interracial marriages, which, by the way, have had about as much of a demoralizing impact on our society as did Elvis.

Some argue that marriage is for natural procreation, of which homosexuals are incapable. So are heterosexuals who are physically incapable of having children. What about those who choose not to have children? Should they be disallowed from marrying?

Some argue that homosexual marriages should not be allowed because of the potential harm to children. The possible harm to children of homosexual households is unclear. Even if a state could assert such a threat, it would be better handled through adoption laws than marriage laws; the rational relationship is questionable.

Some argue marriage is an institution for two people to share their love and their lives. Whether anyone cares to believe it, homosexuals are capable of love. More so, I sense, than some of the people who would deny them their constitutional rights.

I will not enter into the religious arguments of the opponents of homosexual marriages. Suffice it to say that, as an agnostic, I couldn’t care less. The argument will also fail in the court system.

Finally, there is the argument that judges, as non-elected officials, should not be making social policy. The will of the majority rules, right? Tell that to the blacks who had to wait for the judiciary to integrate the public schools because the representatives of the majority sure weren’t doing it.

Doesn’t it just bite when the Constitution won’t allow you to discriminate?

---

Theresa Wilson is a graduate student at ISU in political science and a law student at Drake University.