|
home > legislation > 2004 legislative report
S.B. 24 Marriage Defined
Senate
Judiciary, Law Enforcement,
and Criminal Justice Committee
Utah State Capitol
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
January
21, 2004
RE:
S.B. 24 Marriage Defined
Dear Committee Members,
The ACLU of Utah is writing to register its objection to Senate Bill
24, which deprives lesbian and gay couples in Utah of any legal protection
of their lifelong relationships. S.B. 24 is constitutionally deficient
and fundamentally unfair. Existing Utah Code § 30-1-2 already prohibits
marriage between persons of the same sex. S.B. 24 seeks to amend this
section by denying same sex couples the right to marry, thereby denying
them any mechanism for ensuring that the law recognizes their emotional
and financial commitments to one another. This is fundamentally unfair.
S.B. 24 also raises serious constitutional concerns. The Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that no state
will deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws. U.S. Const. amend. XIV; see also Utah Const., art. I. The
United States Supreme Court has long held that discrimination for its
own sake is inherently improper: “[I]f the constitutional conception
of equal protection of the laws means anything, it must at the very
least mean that a bare [governmental] desire to harm a politically unpopular
group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest.” United
States Dept. of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973); see also
Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984) (“The Constitution
cannot control . . . prejudices but neither can it tolerate them. Private
biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly
or indirectly, give them effect.”). In Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.
620, 634-35 (1996), the Court made express that this fundamental principle
applies equally to discrimination against lesbian and gay people. Furthermore,
in its decision last summer in Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003),
the U.S. Supreme Court held that lesbians and gay men, just like heterosexuals,
have a fundamental right to form intimate relationships.
Respectfully,
Margaret Plane
|
|
|