That Nausea You Feel is Just Discrimination at Work

300px-14th_Amendment_Pg1of2_AC.jpg

The 14th Amendment of the
United States Constituion

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, 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.

This law, of course, gave rise to the “separate but equal” racial discrimination clauses, those same clauses that were done away with at the same time the anti-miscegenation laws were repealed (although it might be worth noting that the last anti-miscegenation law was not removed from the books, as it were, until 2000, in Alabama; Virginia was the last state to prosecute, in 1967).

In Loving v. Virginia, which has to be one of the most poetic legal case titles there will ever be, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Twenty-nine years ago, our country realized that love is colourblind. How much longer will it be before the country realizes that swapping gender for race in the Loving decision is a simple swap made so because of this very first line: marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.

If you believe that, if you believe the State does not have the right to tell you who to marry, then you can only watch with anger and disbelief as the Washington Supreme Court violates the very basic civil rights of man laid so clearly out those 29 years prior.

Here’s hoping the case continues forward in appeal, and that the United States Supreme Court heeds its own words and rules that “classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

6 Comments so far

  1. josh (unregistered) on July 26th, 2006 @ 10:24 am

    according to lambda legal (in the p-i article linked in dylan’s post), there’s no federal claim in their case; so no possibility of appeal to the US supreme court.


  2. Aaron B. Hockley (unregistered) on July 26th, 2006 @ 10:38 am

    Josh is correct… the case wasn’t about the legality of gay marriage… the case argued that the legislature did not have the power or right to define what “marriage” is.


  3. Kelly (unregistered) on July 26th, 2006 @ 10:53 am

    I’ve heard a dissenting view about whether or not this will be able to go to a federal level, but I’m afraid I have to leave it at that, for the whole protect the anonymous source thing. :)


  4. dw (unregistered) on July 26th, 2006 @ 11:04 am

    It’s unlikely this will go to the federal level, since you’d have to make this a federal case in order to do that. In effect, DOJ would have to sue the state.

    You want it changed? Elect state legislators and senators who will overturn the DOMA and pass laws to allow for gay marriage. Same goes for those who want the status quo — elect people to the legislature who agree with you.

    Of course, in doing so you run the risk of a one-issue legislative branch that looks like the Do-Nothing Congress we have now, but it’s your vote and your choice.


  5. wasiq (unregistered) on July 26th, 2006 @ 2:09 pm

    “Mr chairman we are done here for the term….lets bring on the burgers…..”


  6. John (unregistered) on July 26th, 2006 @ 5:28 pm

    on the plus side, the supreme court *did* say that the state congress has the right to define marriage, which means they *can* make a law legalizing it. So just have to do what DW said and elect some state reps who’ll do it.

    Of course, I’d wager most of the people reading this in the seattle area already have state reps who support it.

    Maybe. I’d have to doublecheck the voting on doma and compare it to who is in office now.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.