Equal Protection of the Laws

Amendment 14
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction hereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

To me the question is simple. Any law that denies any citizen of the United States rights or protections enjoyed by the majority of the people is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. This has been upheld time and time again. Surely the law that was used to end racial segregation does not stop at racial differences. As the Supreme Law of the Land, the US Constitution and its Amendments trump ANY law of Congress, Executive Order of the President, or any law of any state in the Union. As a result, any legal attempt to deny citizens the rights and privileges received through marriage by denying them the right to marry should likewise be seen as a violation of the Constitution.

As a result, the effect the Federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 has on denying citizens the rights and privileges of marriage is a violation of their rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plain and simple. There is no room for point of view, the law is clear.

Amendment 1
"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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States embodies the basic and fundamental rights of a citizen living in a free society. Citizens must not be afraid to express their opinion. They must feel comfortable with their beliefs. They must not be afraid to gather in groups for political purposes. The "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment guarantees that the government of the United States will not establish a legal, official religion for the nation. This also guarantees a person the right to not practice a religion at all.

Opponents of gay marriage argue that "marriage" is a sacred institution. It is a union of a man and a woman and consecrated by God. If that is the case, then the defense of "marriage" by any law is yet another violation of a Constitutional Amendment. As a religious institution, it can not be defined by a law of the United States, it would be up to the religious institutions to define what a marriage can, and can not be. In this light, the Federal Defnese of Marriage Act of 1996 is again shown to be unconstitutional.

Whether it is thought that "gay marriage" will "destroy the institute of marriage" and will harm "family values" is irrelevant. If Congress and politicians, and the Moral Majority or the Family Research Council or any other so-called defenders of "family values" want to attack an institution that is harming family values they should fight against the institutionalized socio-economic segregation. This segregation keeps people in poverty, drives both parents to work more than one job while leaving children to fend for themselves and to turn to surrogate institutions for acceptance. Certainly it would be better for a same-sex couple to adopt a child and show it love and give it a safe environment to grow than to have that child bounced from foster family to foster family.