Constitutional Questions Involved in the “Gay Marriage Question”

           The argument regarding “gay marriage” has intensified as of late, especially since President Obama has thrown his hat into the ring. The “question” of whether gays should be allowed to marry in America should not be a question, let alone such a polarizing political issue. It should not be a question at all because of the Constitution for the United States of America. There are, or at least there should be, two Amendments to the Constitution that are involved in this debate, and which solve the “question” unequivocally. These Amendments are the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.
          The first constitutional amendment (the First Amendment) implicated in this debate is really an argument of semantics.  Using the term “marriage” implicates the First Amendment because marriage is a religious institution. In being a religious institution, it is not within the purview of governmental authority as guaranteed by the First Amendment’s freedom of and for religion clause, and as such any politician’s personal view of the rightness or wrongness of “gay marriage” is immaterial and whether marriage for homosexuals will be allowed is a matter for individual religion/church to decide.
           However, the term “gay marriage,” as a political issue, actually refers to a different question: whether the union of two homosexuals should be recognized by the government by giving the same tax-related and other benefits to the members of that union. This question implicates the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the clauses that state, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . [and] . . . [n]o State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” This guarantees to all persons that they will be treated as equivalent to any other under law, and this principal is normally read to apply to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. Guaranteeing equal protection of the law means giving everyone the same legal benefits and duties as everyone else. It is easier to explain through a simple logical proof:

Q – Does the Equal Protection Clause guarantee equal protection of the laws to all persons who are citizens of the United States of America? 
A – Yes. 
Q – If a homosexual has been born or naturalized in the United States, is he or she a person and citizen of the United States? 
A – Yes; he or she is a person and citizen of the United States. 
Q – Are taxation laws, and other similar laws that impart benefits to recognized unions, laws? 
A – They are laws. 
Q – Did the Equal Protection Clause guarantee the equal protection of LAWS? 
A – Yes; it did. 
Summary – Homosexual persons are persons, and if they are naturalized or born in the United States, they are United States citizens, and are thereby guaranteed the equal protection of the laws, in which category the laws that impart benefits to members of a recognized union are included. Ergo, homosexual persons, who are also citizens of the United States, are (not should be because this SHOULD NOT BE a question) entitled to the same legal benefits afforded to anyone else in a recognized union, and their unions should also be recognized along with everyone else’s.
          
          It may be easier to understand by approaching it in a historical context. African Americans were persecuted by white persons because they had darker skin than white people. Is skin color or race a rational, sensible reason for persecuting someone or rational methodology for establishing someone’s worth and entitlement to dignity? No (hopefully everyone agrees with that sentiment) because everyone is a human being or a homo sapien sapien, and as such is entitled to the same dignity upon being brought into this world. Sexual orientation is like skin color or race in that it is irrelevant to someone’s entitlement to dignity or worth. Both of these groups (African Americans in the past and homosexuals of today) are being persecuted based on irrelevant attributes. This country has realized how foolish it was for persecuting African Americans, Asians, Indians based on skin color and other physical attributes, it should realize how foolish it is to persecute based on other irrelevant characteristics.
           In sum, "gay marriage" cannot and should not be legislated as it involves a religious institution and is therefore outside the government's sphere of power; however, some type of union (or whatever term it is given) should be recognized by the government, both federal and state, and the members thereof should be given the same type of benefits that those in heterosexual unions are given.