Changing Society followed by Changing Social Policy

Again and again same sex marriage has had a way of working it's way into the spotlight of mainstream media as well as mainstream politics. Now it could become apart of our nation's mainstream social policy which is an incredibly big step in the positive direction for same-sex couples. In April the Supreme Court has allowed the hearing of landmark marriage cases regarding the ban of same-sex marriage that some states have set in place. The court will hear these cases to determine the constitutionality of these state bans.

Now starting at the arguments origin. Arising from the four states in the Sixth Appellate District there are two distinct issues. One being whether or not the 14th Amendment can be utilized for requiring states to recognize the right for same-sex couples to marry. But the last issue is a real kicker because it deals with whether or not a marriage conducted in one state is permitted to be recognized in another state that may or may not recognize gay marriage.

As the legal system sees it there are three options that available. One is that the Court will decide to add a new right to the Constitution via the Fourteenth Amendment. This could go over because the Court could find the states in violation of the privileges and immunity's clause. The only other time the court has ruled on a marriage issue since the ratification of the Constitution has been the 1967 Court ruling on interracial marriage. Traditionally the rules on marriage have been state controlled.

Another option is just to say no to both issues that are presented. If the justices are to do so they would be ruling on the idea that there is no constitutional right being violated. They would also be saying that the states have enough power and enough credit to take control and make decisions for themselves and be independent of federal government involvement.

A last option that is available to the court is to say yes to one option and no to the remaining options that have been presented to them. The Court would be stating that there is no constitutionally delegated right to same-sex marriage and that states have the power to regulate marriage laws. But in the same instance the Court would also be requiring states to uphold the full faith and credit clause of Article IV which mandates states to uphold every public act conducted by states including marriage.

The gay marriage debate has been a long and lengthy one but there could be a light at the end of this long tunnel. In my personal opinion either option one or three would be the best courses of action because if the court's rule out of favor with gay couples and gay rights supporters then this could lead to a nationwide uproar. The importance of this Supreme Court ruling has never been seen or felt since the fight for civil rights in the 20th century.

More information can be found here:
Deseret News
Huffington Post