The question of homosexual relations and untraditional marriages remains to be open for a long period of time. It is hard to make all people choose the same position and stick to it all the time. Some people feel ok with a number of homosexuals around.
Many people cannot understand such a weird choice even if some countries and states of America legalize the opportunity. And some people take a neutral position until the homosexual question touches their families. This is why it is an individual choice about whether a homosexual marriage, as well as the federal Defense Marriage Act, has to be considered as constitutional or have not.
Role of the Court
Due to the fact that many cases based on the problems of homosexual marriages and even just the relations between the people of the same-sex take place very often, the role of a Court remains to be significant. Many people consider the solutions made by this legal body, and a number of families depend on the discussions developed in the Court.
However, I think that the role of the Court has to be as crucial as many people expect to be. The Court should not have a right to legalize or not the cases of same-sex marriages. Even the law and the world’s opinion are about the idea of the relations between a man and a woman. In spite of a variety of opinions, there is one and the same meaning of marriage.
As a rule, a marriage is regarded as a legal union that takes place between a man (called as a husband) and a woman (called as a wife) (Cruz, 2011). Though some people are not ready or cannot believe in the power of law because of some personal prejudices, they cannot oppose the thought offered by the Bible. It is said that a man and a woman are created to have the relationship. Anyway, in my opinion, the Court cannot be provided with the necessary rights in order to make independent solutions about same-sex marriages.
Judicial Activism vs. Restraint
Regarding the importance and the influence of the Court on the lives of millions of people and the necessity keep order regarding particular situations and cases, I believe that the idea of judicial restraint is a better option because of several reasons. First, under judicial restraint makes it possible to limit a judge power.
In other words, judges are not provided with the rights to strike downs the existing laws. It promotes a kind of control and the same conditions for all people regarding the current rules and principles. Second, it is possible to use the past cases and the results of the decisions in order to solve the current problem and be appropriate to the solutions made. Finally, judicial restraint is a chance to avoid a number of personal matters in a solution process.
The point is that when a case is discussed in the Court, it means that it has been already proved as significant. It is not enough to consider a public opinion. It is necessary to rely on the law and use the legal experience. This is what the Supreme Court justice is all about. This is what judicial restraint helps to comprehend and rely on.
The Federal Defense Marriage Act
Due to the existing laws and public opinion, some people still hesitate about the constitutionality of the federal Defense Marriage Act. In fact, the doubts are justified and expected. In my opinion, it is wrong to believe that this act can be regarded as constitutional. Its unconstitutionality is proved due to the attempts to deny the already established benefits for people, who are going to support marriages of same-sex couples.
It is stated that the regions where same-sex marriages are not legally approved cannot be forced to accept such marriages. According to the Constitution, “full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State” (“The Constitution of the United States”, 2015, Article IV, Section 1).
In addition, the case of Lawrence proves that human rights are violated even if they are in their own homes doing the things they like. A person has a right to be engaged in any kind of sexual affairs privately, and the Lawrence case shows how the right is not legally supported (“Lawrence et al. v. Texas”, 2003).
This is why answering the question if the federal Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional or not, I support the side that it is not constitutional. I truly want to believe that the American people have a right to live a free life following their demands and needs. People can have homosexual or heterosexual relations.
Still, when the time to discuss the marriage conditions comes, it is obligatory to follow common for everybody law that is about the marriage between a man and a woman only. It is wrong to make homosexual marriage constitutionally correct as it may contradict a number of other rules and norms.
Cruz, D.B. (2011). The defense of marriage act and uncategorical federalism. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 19(3), 805-828.
Lawrence et al. v. Texas. (2003). United States reports, volume 539: Cases adjusted in the supreme court at October term, 2002, June 2 through October 2, 2003, together with opinion of individual justice in chambers (pp. 558-606). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.