Oath of office
Oath of office
Not fit to serve
The presidential oath of office is set forth in the United States Constitution: “Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation; I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (U.S. Const., Art. 11, § 1, subpara. 8).
The Constitution also states “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (Fourteenth Amendment, § 1).
The United States Supreme Court, the recognized final arbiter of the meaning of our Constitution, has decided in no uncertain terms that the right to marry is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Loving v. Virginia (1967) 388 U.S. 1, 12 [the “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”] Indeed, numerous decisions of the high court have made clear the freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 479, 484; Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113, 152; Planned Parenthood of Southeastem Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) 505 U.S. 833, 846-853; Lawrence v. Texas (2003) 539 U.S. 558.)
A solid legal (constitutional) argument — as opposed to one based on personal preferences or religious teachings — can also be advanced that the deprivation of this fundamental right to same-sex couples offends not only principles of due process, but also the equal protection clause.
And while it is true the ubiquitous “state” is not completely shackled from depriving its citizens of fundamental constitutional rights, it may do so only if it can demonstrate a compelling state interest that not only trumps the right being denied but cannot otherwise be vindicated by some less intrusive and restrictive mechanism. (University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978) 438 U.S. 265, 357.)
We live in a constitutional democracy. Any candidate for public office who is required by oath to protect and defend the Constitution but who nonetheless elevates his or her personal preferences or religious beliefs above that Constitution is simply not fit to serve.
Edward H. Schulman
Kailua-Kona