A Brief History of the Same Sex Marriage Controversy

This article focuses on the same sex marriage controversy and it's history in Congress and the Courts.

The issue of same sex marriage was re-ignited recently by the decision of the Obama Administration not to defend DOMA in the courts. This was widely viewed as a political move. However Obama has admitted struggling with the same sex marriage issue. He originally supported same sex unions.

The rulings by State Supreme Courts in Hawaii, Alaska, California and Iowa opposed Same Sex Marriage bans. Many states changed their state constitutions to sidestep their state Supreme Court rulings. The details of State Supreme Courts rulings is provided at the following URL:

http://law-library.rutgers.edu/SSM.html

The anti same sex marriage stance by the states is allowed and legalized by the Defense Of Marriage Act. The De fence Of Marriage Act (DOMA) became law in 1996. It could also be described as the anti-same sex marriage act. The DOMA act is provided at the following URL:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:H.R.3396:

An analysis of the Defense Of Marriage Act is provided at the following URL:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

In the courts, the arguments against same sex marriage are based on moral grounds. Moral grounds were not sufficient in at least several State Supreme Courts. If DOMA was brought to the US Supreme Court, I think the argument against same sex marriage would fail on two counts:

1) There is no constitutional basis for a same sex marriage ban and

2) Discrimination against same sex marriage via not offering the same benefits would be considered unconstitutional.

A ruling of this type by the US Supreme Court would send shock waves through all the states and render the issue a major issue in the 2012 elections. The Lawrence v Texas decision by the US Supreme Court in 2003 did exactly that. For details on that Supreme Court ruling, the following URL is provided:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

This site does a much better job of explaining the issues than I could possibly do in this article. I highly recommend that people read the Lawrence v Texas decision because a constitutional marriage amendment could very well lead to the same privacy issues.

Apparently, the Republicans were very well aware of this when they advocated a marriage amendment to the US Constitution. The Proposed Federal Marriage amendment to the US Constitution (2003) is provided at the following URL:

http://law-library.rutgers.edu/SSM.html#fma

I oppose a same sex marriage amendment because it sets a very bad precedent. I think it ironic that the political party opposing big government would support an amendment that imposes a moral and religious restriction on the people. The US Constitution is about the powers of the Federal Government; not about moral or religious issues. Introducing a religious or moral value into the US Constitution would compromise the Establishment Clause. It would threaten our religious freedom and our right to privacy.