The LBGT community and supporters have been struggling with marriage equality for years. Last Friday, June 26, the issue was finally settled. On that day, the United States Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage a Constitutional right in all 50 states.
Lee County probate judge stated “We get hit with the [the ruling] on Friday.” As citizens of a democratic nation, we also feel as we were “hit” with the highly controversial ruling.
In addition to same-sex marriage being such a controversial issue, many of us view the legalization is right in the sense we are a free democracy, and everyone deserves the right to decide what they would like to do with their own personal beliefs, religion taken into consideration.
On the other hand, some of us think it is a human rights issue, religion aside.
However, regardless of these personal opinions and beliefs, we agree the states should have had the right to make this decision.
The Supreme Court is not representative of the whole population.
Our nation is a republic, a democracy, a nation in which we govern ourselves.
We, the citizens, are supposed to have the power. So why did individual states not have the opportunity to vote on this issue?
In the United States, we have a system of checks and balances which divides our government into three separate branches: the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch.
The reason this system was set up was to ensure neither the states, nor the federal government could become too powerful.
However, in the past, many states, including Alabama, have voted down same-sex marriage in not one, but several different elections.
Considering the way the process took place, we believe it sets a dangerous precedent, possibly even threatening states’ rights in the future.
One example this concern might be relevant in is regarding anti-discrimination laws.
Now that same-sex marriage has been legalized in all 50 states, pushing for this type of legislation will likely be the focus of many LGBT advocates, especially considering not even half of states currently have such laws.
In general, anti-discrimination laws may not prove to be as controversial as legalizing same-sex marriage. However, some may oppose these anti-discrimination laws for religious reasons or other personal beliefs.
Regardless, this would give rise to new debates in some states or regions where the majority would not have voted in favor of same-sex marriage to begin with.
In addition, how would separation of church and state play into this?
In conclusion, disregarding any personal beliefs we may hold independently, we do not think same-sex marriage legislation was passed in the right way.
We feel the states should have been allowed the right to vote on same-sex marriage laws within their state.
As citizens living in a democratic nation, we should have had the right to decide for ourselves.
Lastly, we believe it is important to be kind and make sure not the persecute others simply because they hold different beliefs or opinions.
Again, this is a highly controversial issue and respect for others is crucial, regardless of whether you are in favor of same-sex marriage legalization.
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
