Protecting the Free States

this differs slightly from the print version.

Interracial marriage offended the sensibilities of many in 1967 when the Supreme Court, with Loving v. Virginia, overturned laws in the US that prohibited “miscegenation.” At the time, conservatives argued (because of their faith and/or their personal convictions) that they could not stand for such marriages because they were immoral. They also claimed that allowing interracial marriages made a mockery of the institution of marriage and that it was against the will of God. This sure sounds like something that’s going on right now…

In Bush’s State of the Union Address, he told us that if “activist judges” continued to make same-sex marriage an issue, that the only course of action would be the introduction of a constitutional amendment that would serve to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. Bush is suggesting that we amend the constituting document of these United States to respond to the religious beliefs of some Americans.

Well, we could do that to appease his friends at Bob Jones University, but it seems like the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) already gives states the right to refuse to acknowledge the same-sex marriages of any state that allows them. Even Bill Barr, author of the Federal DoMA, argues against such an amendment because it would be unnecessarily punitive and have no real impact beyond what DoMA already does. Also, if Republicans support such an amendment it would be incredibly hypocritical on their part as it would serve to nullify the laws of states like Vermont, who have decided to permit civil unions in the same way they permit marriages. I thought that the GOP argued for “States Rights” and for keeping “Big Government” out of the internal affairs of each state—that’s what they argued for when DoMA was being considered in Congress and also during the past several elections.

While I firmly believe in the right of all people to practice their religion and faith, I do not believe that such a right to practice includes the power to limit the practices of others. Some faiths sanction gay marriages, while others do not. For the United States to make any law that values the marriage of one religion over any other is an obvious violation of my rights and yours. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act, the Iowa version and any efforts to amend our Constitution should be opposed by all citizens interested in a free society.

by Addy Free, Columnist
The Cornellian vol. 124, issue 10