What Does the Constitution Say About Same Sex Marriage?

When the Supreme Court decided the Obamacare case, it shed light on one of the most significant constitutional questions in American history: how broad is the power of the federal government when it comes to regulating economic activity? As significant as that question is, the Court is now considering an even more fundamental question: how should the Constitution be interpreted, in light of what the founders believed the words meant, or in light of the socially and culturally accepted meaning of the words today?

The cases at issue, of course, are the same sex marriage cases that the Court will decide by June 2013. The critical constitutional provision is the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, three years after the conclusion of the Civil War.

It is probably safe to say that if we could travel back in time and poll the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment, a near unanimous majority would agree that the amendment did not guarantee a right to same sex marriage. So, those who believe that the Constitution does guarantee such a right must be able to explain how that right exists if the very people who wrote the text would disagree.

The most common answer to this conundrum is that the Constitution was meant to be a living document. It was meant to evolve with society. As evidence of this theory, its adherents point to the fact that some of the founders did not even believe that the Supreme Court would have the power to hold laws unconstitutional. But that concept is nearly universally accepted now. Thus, even in its first few decades of existence, the Constitution evolved.

An Originalist, such as Justice Scalia, who believes that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of those who drafted it, would disagree with the above argument. In response, Scalia might argue that allowing judges to interpret provisions of the Constitution in ways that differ from the intent of those who drafted it strips the document of all meaning. What good is a law if it can mean one thing one day and the opposite another day? If that is what is happening, aren’t we allowing public opinion to dictate what the Constitution means? But isn’t the very purpose of the Constitution to protect the rights of minorities from the will of the majority? If we are going to allow public opinion to influence the meaning of the Constitution, why not just let public opinion dictate law directly through the democratic process?

So, what does the Constitution say about same sex marriage? It depends how one interprets the following text from the Fourteenth Amendment:

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.

The people who voted to adopt that text in 1868 almost certainly did not believe that it guaranteed a right to same sex marriage. But if that language guarantees a right to interracial marriage and a right to use contraceptives (which the Supreme Court has held that it does), it seems that it could quite reasonably be interpreted to guarantee a right to same sex marriage.

The question is far too complex for me to resolve in this space. But the debate described above will be central to the arguments made in the legal briefs, oral arguments and the Supreme Court’s opinion itself, links to each of which will be posted in this space when they are released.

UPDATE: Further reading can be found here.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in law, same-sex marriage, supreme court and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to What Does the Constitution Say About Same Sex Marriage?

  1. villagebear says:

  2. Mr.J1s says:

    “The question is far too complex for me to resolve in this space.”

    While that’s true, I’m still interested to read your point of view on how the Fourteenth Amendment will be used to argue both sides of the case (besides the Originalist/Living Constitution argument). Give us more!

  3. Suszek says:

    There will be much more coming on these cases. I’m glad to hear that there is interest.

  4. Steve says:

    The constitution does not give men “rights” to God’s children. Only God gives “rights.” According to God’s laws homosexuality is an abomination. Abortion is a sin. Sex out of wedlock and infidelity are forbidden, but legal. The Bible was written by God. The U.S. Constitution was written by man. God wrote the rules for those who praise and believe in him. Man wrote the rule for the society in which you live. Thus, God, nor the belief in him is not required to have a societal, or “civil” recognized marriage. Therefore homosexual marriage is not and cannot be recognized by God, but will only be recognized by mans law.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s