Obviously, this is an accompanying article to Amber Wooten’s “My World.”I will cover the legal aspects of her topic: Homosexuality. There is one legal document, the “supreme Law of the Land,” which can settle this topic.
This legal document is the United States Constitution, and there are several relevant parts. The first is Article One, Section Eight; the second is the First Amendment; third is the Fourteenth Amendment; and finally, the ideal of equality, which is thoroughly embedded in the United States Constitution.
Article One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution prescribes the authorities Congress has. This means Article One, Section Eight lists what Congress can regulate. Nowhere in Article One, Section Eight is Congress authorized to regulate people’s individual beliefs and free exercise thereof.
And this is further reinforced by the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof….” Sure, homosexuality isn’t a religion or even condoned by most religions.
But there are two points here: First, the anti-homosexuality movement is strongly perpetuated by religion, which creates legitimate ground for arguing that it is a religious value; Second, there’s an implication of separation of church and state with the first line (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”) of the First Amendment.
Consequently, Congress lacks the authority to regulate homosexuality.
Then comes the Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States….” This means that State governments are also prohibited from violating an individual’s rights.
And why is homosexuality a right? Maybe being homosexual is a conscious choice; maybe the homosexual attractions are not a choice. The inarguable point is whether or not to engage in homosexual activities and relationships is a choice. One can choose to partake, or one can choose to abstain. Therefore, choice is involved, and whenever there is a choice, there is simultaneously a right. Conclusively, having a choice does constitute a right.
Why wouldn’t it be a right-because a religious institution says so? I, as everyone should, have problems trusting entities which have centuries of experience in controlling people.
This is why our wise founding fathers adopted the First Amendment: they knew religion could warp and control, so they made provisions to prevent against the government and the church sharing control.
These protections have been extended to state governments by the Fourteenth Amendment: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States….” Obviously, states arent supposed to regulate the rights of U.S. citizens-us.
Regardless, Article One, Section Eight; the First Amendment; and the Fourteenth Amendment all prohibit both federal and state level regulation in regard to the exercise of people’s rights. Admittedly the First Amendment, as cited, protects people’s right to freely exercise religion. But because religion is a matter of belief as homosexuality is, neither federal nor state governments can regulate homosexuality.
And the concept of equality is most prominent in the amendments. The first Ten Amendments (most commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights) are in place to protect people’s individual liberties and rights; subsequently amendments extend equality: The Thirteenth Amendment ended and prohibited slavery; the Fourteenth Amendment not only protects people’s rights from the states, but also protects all people’s “privileges or immunities”; the Fifteenth Amendment extended voting rights to all citizens regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude…,” and the Nineteenth Amendment extended voting rights to women.
This is barely scratching the surface of the ideal of equality embedded in the United States Constitution. And to violate the concept of equality is inarguably unconstitutional, but most especially when it bluntly violates clearly written legislation.
So what does all of this mean? It means both state and federal government should not and, per the United States Constitution, cannot regulate homosexuality. End of story.