Campus Chronicle

Issue date: 7/15/03 Section: Perspectives

Media Credit: Photo provided Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) supported a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, introduced the day before Lawrence was decided.

(U-WIRE) BLOOMINGTON, Ind. - In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that states can make private sexual behavior illegal. This case, Bowers v. Hardwick, has been held over the heads of homosexual couples since that time by those who consider homosexuality deviant and immoral.

The Supreme Court came to its senses June 27. The Court ruled, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, that the government can not criminalize private sexual behavior (for either homosexuals or heterosexuals).

This is a landmark decision, but an equally important issue arises when we look at the response of many to the Court's ruling.

Many conservatives have stated that this decision should be feared because it could, some day, lead to the Supreme Court forcing states to recognize gay marriages. Defenders of the Court have said it does no such thing.

But what if it did? What if this decision opened the door to gay marriage in the United States in the near future? Though American society might not be ready for gay "marriage" yet, I fail to see why eventually recognizing it is such a bad thing. If society is to say that we cannot discriminate based on race, gender or national origin, shouldn't we then say that we should not discriminate against homosexuals by not allowing them to marry?

This belief is based upon the premise that it is not the government's right to legislate morality. Why? My morals are likely different than yours, but neither of us has any right to say the morals of one are better than the morals of another. We can certainly base law upon morals in circumstances where the behavior we are restricting is harmful (like murder), but, as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion for this case, "[t]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice."

This wording certainly is very broad, but it is unlikely it would be used, at least in the near future, to require recognition of gay marriage. Many states - Indiana included - have not taken even the step of protecting homosexuals from discrimination in the workplace.

Continued...

Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools