Strict constructionism is where the people want everything to be straight from the constitution, thus wanting everything word for word from the constitution. However, loose constructionism is where they have a very loose interpretation of the constitution. With loose constructionism elastic language is acceptable. In the 1790’s there were two politicians, Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, these two men often disagreed with each other. The reasoning behind this is that Hamilton followed broad constructionism, while Jefferson followed the constitution exactly. Louisiana has a law that says marriage can only be between a man and a woman. People who are supporters of this law want it not just to be in the state law but to be in the constitution. These supporters follow strict constructionism, like Jefferson. John Rawls believes that this amendment doesn’t only affect the ban on gay marriage, but also the relationship between unmarried couples, gay or straight. John Rawls, a lawyer for Forums of Equality, said, “I am disappointed that so many Louisianans either did not read the amendment or are so afraid of gays that they voted for this amendment anyway,”. By this statement he means that people only voted for this amendment because they were either afraid of gays or unknowledgeable of what the amendment said. Similar to Hamilton, Rawls follows the path of more loosely interpreted constitution. During the New Republic each group was on a separate side (loose or strict constructionism) and in this article it follows the same thing. There are two sides to everything. I believe that gay marriage should be decided by the states. However, I do not believe in the opinion that my state holds on this issue. I think that if two people of the same sex get married in a state that it is legal then marriage rights should apply to them even in the states where gay marriage is not legal, sadly this is not the case. I do believe that with this topic strict interpretation should...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document