Paper 2

Paper 2 - Woo 1 Kristie Woo Aaron Anderson DOC 2...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Woo 1 Kristie Woo Aaron Anderson DOC 2: Justice (C20) 3 March 2010 A Fully Justified Love Love, intimacy, and what we choose to do in the privacy of our own homes are matters that should have been settled long ago—especially given our First Amendment rights to freely express ourselves. Yet at times, we allow the prominence of tradition and our “moral” values to cloud our view of how far that freedom truly extends. For example, today we are given the private, sexual freedom of using contraceptives or getting an abortion—as these are matters the state should also not meddle in. Yet, the private, sexual freedom of choosing a marriage partner of the same sex is illegal. Though the opposing sides for and against legalizing same-sex marriage present persuasive arguments by way of a rational basis test or strictly scrutinizing the Constitution, the reasoning in Supreme Court cases Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, and Bowers v. Hardwick ultimately justifies the right for same-sex couples to marry. In Griswold , Justice Douglas establishes that there are fundamental rights given to people not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution—among them, a right to privacy within the marital home ( Griswold 273). In further support of the Griswold decision, Roe sets forth the importance of strictly limiting the fundamental right of privacy when there is a necessary and compelling government interest in an otherwise defenseless life. Though some argue that allowing same-sex marriage is too liberal of a stretch of one’s rights and would undo years of “ancient roots in moral and ethical standards”, the Constitution inherently calls for the respect of the people and their rights—and nothing less ( Bowers 315).
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Woo 2 Through Justice Douglas’s reasoning in Griswold and the establishment of “zones of privacy” implied in the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments, it is clear that same-sex marriage is Constitutionally justified. By pinpointing rights given to people in the penumbras of Amendments in the Constitution, he stresses that rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution do not indicate that they do no exist. In this case, one has the right “to be secure in one’s house”, where the “government may not force him to surrender to his detriment” as stated in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments ( Griswold 273). Justice Douglass goes on to state how these implied rights are also fundamental , meaning they are “deep-rooted in our society” and “essential to the pursuit of happiness” in a free society ( Griswold 274, 275). Douglas is making the point that privacy is a fundamental right because of its implied
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.
  • Winter '08
  • Wimberley
  • Supreme Court of the United States, Same-sex marriage, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Griswold, fundamental right

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 7

Paper 2 - Woo 1 Kristie Woo Aaron Anderson DOC 2...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online