Letter to the Editor: Gay rights

Friday, October 9, 2009

I think it’s remarkable how reliant some individuals are on executive power to “change” laws, as Dan Thompson said in his column, “Gay Rights Deserve More Attention.” I certainly agree that equal rights are important, but what is President Barack Obama going to do?

First, it’s important to understand that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does not “prevent the federal government from recognizing gay marriages.” It says no state needs to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state, which is such a clear and, frankly, stupid contradiction to the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV, Section II of the U.S. Constitution. If a state refuses to recognize the marriage of another state, that couple is taxed at a discriminatory rate and denied the equal protection of laws.

Second, the executive branch does not make the laws. The President has the power to “carry out” and “faithfully execute” the laws. Thus, it is futile to place such responsibility on the president.

Third, Obama is a politician, and his motives are in favor of public support and votes. In case anyone missed the phenomenal vice presidential debate of 2008, Joe Biden, who spoke directly for the views of Obama, concurred with Sarah Palin’s statement that she “only supports a traditional marriage between a man and a woman.” Obama is going to stand for the position of the common voter, not the minority.

Gay marriage should not be “left up to the states,” as Thompson suggested. Instead, it is an issue that must be heard by the courts, overturned in states with laws to the contrary of that judgment and enforced by the executive.

— James Castle is a sophomore from Overland Park.

Comments

connerm (anonymous) says...

Dick Cheney is for gay marriage.

October 9, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

glenjamin (anonymous) says...

I think you forgot about Amendment X, James.

October 9, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

pantheon (anonymous) says...

I don't think the 10th amendment gives states carte blanche to take away the rights of American citizens, glenjamin.

October 9, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hendrix321 (anonymous) says...

Correct, because the 14th Amendment would pre-empt that.

However, if not for the 14th Amendment, the 10th Amendment would. However, nobody takes the 10th Amendment seriously anymore.

October 11, 2009 at 6:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

glenjamin (anonymous) says...

First, gay marriage is not a RIGHT. It's a political stunt to force Americans to endorse homosexuality, not simply tolerate it. Marriage was never the issue.

Second, the 10th amendment didn't give the states free reign to take away citizens' rights. Did you miss the first nine (specifically, the ninth)?

October 11, 2009 at 9:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hendrix321 (anonymous) says...

The Ninth Amendment vaguely states that citizens have other rights; it does not specifically define any of these rights, nor does the wording in any fashion suggest that these rights are unlimited in scope.

October 12, 2009 at 12:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

connerm (anonymous) says...

I think it's pretty clear that, barring an amendment, there is no constitutional right for the federal government to say anything about marriage. The next natural questions are:

Who defines marriage?

What level of government CAN define marriage and decide who may and may not enter this contract? There is a difference between registering couples who decide to marry and deciding who is eligible to be on the register. The fact that the government keeps a list does not dictate that it may decide who may be on that list.

Who chooses for the entire population what the definition of this term is?

Should the majority have the rule in this case?

Does the majority's opinion infringe on the ability of others to do as they see fit, or does it protect the nation from a threat that might be brought on by multiple definitions of the same word?

October 12, 2009 at 1:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

handy (anonymous) says...

Marriage is an aging and unnecessary social institution either way.

October 12, 2009 at 9:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

jamescastle (anonymous) says...

glenjamin, the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights) protect CITIZENS from the FEDERAL government; it does not protect citizens from STATE governments. Also, DOMA gives the state the authority to choose to recognize same-sex marriages, so Amendment X is not relevant to this letter.

Hendrix321 is correct that the 14th Amendment SHOULD protect same-sex marriage in terms of constitutional rights. However, the federal statute I was referring too in this letter (DOMA) is not relevant to the Equal Protection Clause in the 5th through the 14th Amendments.

connerm, states are delegated police powers over health, public welfare, and morality, and who can marry is viewed as a question of morality. Also, the logic of "majority rule" is a clearly a poor choice when we're talking about civil rights for minorities.

handy, good point=]

October 27, 2009 at 4:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisement