Closing Argument

The United States is a nation that was founded on the idea that all are created equal, and that we are entitled to the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This idea was so important that the founders fortified these rights with a constitution to ensure that the people of this nation would be free from oppressive laws. Throughout our history laws have been instituted and the Constitution amended to again see that these rights were extended to those who had formerly been denied equal status under the law.

Because “marriage is a fundamental right of man” we set a dangerous precedent in depriving same-sex couples of the rights to marriage. If do not protect the rights of all Americans we are in danger of using our laws in a way where the rights of the few can be infringed upon by the will of the ruling mob.

If we base our laws purely on tradition or history we are simply basing them on things that are very old. Marriage is a tradition, but one that has shifted over time. Marriage is no longer the contract between a father and son-in-law for the exchange of a wife, nor is bigamy a celebrated part of society. Within America’s own history where marriage was once restricted from interracial couples the laws and tradition has shifted to grant marriage rights couples of any racial combination.

While marriage may have religious component it has become a civil matter because of the rights and protections granted unto people who are married are granted by civil governments. According to the United States General Accounting Office as of 2004 there were 1,138 statutory provisions in federal law alone which marital status is a factor. The rights enjoyed by people who are married include, but are not limited to, the right to inherit property, the right to joint adoption, family visitation rights, access to domestic violence intervention, next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions, and the list continues. Among all these rights is the right to title of marriage, and the official and formal recognition of the union as a family.

The laws must recognize that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples does nothing to infringe upon the rights of others, and that the constitution protects the rights of religions, and the non-religious. 

You may be opposed to same-sex marriage for religious reasons, but some religions affirm same-sex marriage, and the laws cannot give more or less value to these religions. And being that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” we cannot use the laws to impose the commandments of anyone religion onto the citizens of the United States.

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how where, or what they may.

“We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government,” D&C 134:9

Finally using laws to implement separate institutions for opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples creates a distinction that can be used to infer that an institution is preferred or is superior to the other, and when the commitments and obligations of a same-sex relationship are the same as those entered into by opposite-sex couples we cannot make such a distinction and maintain “Equal protection of the laws.”  And if they do not receive “equal protection of the laws” as guaranteed by the Constitution we risk abandoning the ideals that this nation was founded on.

This was my closing argument for the same-sex marriage debate at UVU.

Later,

XR4-IT