Gay Marriage

If you want a hotly contested debate, just bring up gay marriage on a college campus. The argument centers on many topics, and to just label it as one that involves “love” and “equal rights” is shortsighted and disingenuous. It, more so than anything, encompasses legal underpinnings and whether the electorate sets social policy.

First and foremost, one of the most cited rationales for gay marriage is the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Essentially, the argument states that homosexuals are denied equal protection if heterosexuals are allowed to marry. There are many essential flaws with this logic. To adhere to it, one must believe that the Equal Protection Clause is all-encompassing, applicable to every facet of life without prejudice. However, any rational person would observe that state and federal governments set up classifications of individuals that aren’t “equal” for a variety of essential rights — voting age comes to mind, for instance.

Moreover, it also presumes that marriage is a fundamental human right, akin to freedom of speech or the right to practice one’s own religion. After conversing with many gay marriage advocates, very few — if any — buy into the precept of marriage being a right that is classified as “fundamental.” Since this is the case, the court’s test for determining the constitutionality of having only heterosexual, monogamous marriage would not be one of strict scrutiny — which posits that the government must provide overwhelming evidence for restricting a right, and is the basis for contests on fundamental rights — but rather a test of rational relationship. Under court precedent, a rational-relationship test simply states that a government entity must display that the statute shows a rational basis for why it is tailored as such, and why it is of governmental interest.

Therefore, applying the rational relationship test to statutory heterosexual marriage passes muster. It would make sense to argue that heterosexual marriage should be promoted to procreate the next generation of responsible citizens. Myriad studies have shown that children grow up happier, healthier and more intellectually ready for adulthood if they are raised with their biological mother and father together in a nuclear setting. The state, knowing this, would want to make sure children grow up in this setting. Marriage, at the statutory level, is an incentive for one man and one woman to unite in order to start a family. It is something that the legislature, the branch that sets social policy, feels necessary to promote in order to have a stable society.

One can point out that not all marriages end up in child-rearing, which is worth noting. However, a vast majority of marriages do promulgate children, which would lead one to believe that it is an advantageous social policy in that regard. Citing a minority of incidents does not make for an effective argument against heterosexual marriage.

The problem with this debate is that marriage has been masked as an essential right, when certainly it is not. If gays and lesbians want to make a legitimate case for a legally recognized union, they should petition their legislative branches and not impose gay marriage on the electorate through judicial fiat. It is a losing proposition, never mind one that neglects our checks and balances and respect for the citizenry to set social policy.

Social change should come through the consent of the governed, not through faulty constitutional reasoning.