Letter to the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice on the Legalization of Same Sex Marriage

Name
Instructor
Subject
Date
Letter to the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice on the Legalization of Same Sex Marriage
The Chief Justice,
U.S. Supreme Court,
First St NE, Washington, D.C, 20543,
United States,
(202) 479-3000.
Dear Sir,
RE: REDEFINING MARRIAGE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
In the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, America’s founding fathers stated:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (Bessette and Pitney 13).
While this statement has been lauded as the most inspiring and well-phrased construction in the English language, it is undeniable that it speaks the most fundamental rights known to man. However, the current state of the American society, particularly as it pertains to the rights of the individual, suggests that the principles of the declaration do not in reality promote equality to all men.
The debate over the legalization of same-sex marriages is a demonstration of the unfairness of the U.S. Constitution in defending the rights of all Americans without favor or discrimination. The failure and reluctance of the judicial system to universally recognize and legalize same-sex marriages is proof that the Constitution does not protect people’s liberty and the right to pursue happiness. The issue is whether the legal definition of marriage in the U.S. Constitution and state laws is fair and impartial, or whether it discriminates against some groups in society. The traditional definition of marriage as a union between man and woman clearly violates the rights of gay and lesbian individuals (Eastman 2013). In defining marriage in heterosexual terms, and in agreeing to the arguments of conservative and religious groups that the role of the family is procreation, and in maintaining that same-sex marriages contradict traditional societal values, the judicial system endorses the notion that individuals have no right on how they live their lives.
What should the Constitution defend; is it what is good for society or what is good for the individual? The philosopher John Stuart Mills, writing in On Lib...