The Equal Protection Clause what is it and how does it affect you? So how many people out there actually know what our Constitution entails? This would be the part where we hear crickets. Why because unless you are super passionate about politics or want to eventually run for congress at some point in your life you, like so many other American citizens have no idea what laws and amendments are set in place. This is where I seek to educate at least on one small faction of the fourteenth amendment. Now I know that for some learning about our government is probably high on the list of things you would rather not do however, there is a lot that we could all stand to learn about protecting these rights we hardly know anything about. The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person with its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws”. In other words it is the constitutional guarantee that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws that is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances. With the amount of problems this country has faced and is facing dealing with discrimination and inequality I believe it holds a very valuable place within our Constitution and more importantly our society. The Equal Protection clause was the center piece of the Civil rights movement and it contributed to desegregation, integration and Affirmative Action. It also contributed to raising consciousness regarding equal treatment and concern regarding race, gender and most recently sexual orientation. Now I know many may not agree with the amendment and what it has contributed to but I do think that it has made an irreversible impact on the way we view equality in this country. This clause is not just about discrimination concerning race but also equality based on gender which also played a major part in our history as a country. How different would our country be without this clause? There would definitely be little to no diversity in the work place, I know for a fact as a women becoming a member of the military would more than likely have been a different experience; while I am sure I would have been able to join my career options would have been very limited. When considering my career as a military member and a women I think it is fair to say that without this clause and others like it my American dream may have been much different and the armed forces may have just been a fantasy never realized had this clause not been put into the Constitution. One of the movements that came with this clause is Affirmative Action which is the consideration of race, gender, or other factors, to benefit an underrepresented group or to address past injustices done to that group. Individuals who belong to said group are preferred over those who do not belong to that group. This sounds really one sided and biased when you look at it as the government or corporations are basically giving handouts to minorities at least that is how some view Affirmative Action and those people may have a valid point however; I view it as a means to give a chance to an individual that may not have otherwise been afforded that opportunity; not for their lack of experience but based on race or gender. I believe those who do not agree with Affirmative Action probably have no idea of where it comes from and the history of it again this article is meant to educate so allow me to explain, during the Reconstruction, Congress enacted race conscious programs primarily to assist the newly freed slaves who had been denied many advantages earlier in life. This legislation was created by many of the people who framed the Equal Protection Clause. The motivation for the clause was basically to unite each state on their interpretation of the clause this was to create less confusion and to provide a clear understanding of what equality meant. Now this is not to imply that there have not been any instances where the states have not violated an individual’s rights as they apply to the clause for example in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court upheld a Louisiana Jim Crow law that required the separation of blacks and whites while on railroads and mandated separate railway cars. The court argued in this case that the Equal Protection Clause was intended to defend equality in civil rights, not equality of social arrangements. Another highly publicized case was Brown v. Board of Education in this case several local governments were separating students in public schools based on race. While these are examples of where the Supreme Court have upheld the standards under the Equal Protection Clause there is one case where they upheld racial classification in United States v. Korematsu (1940) thousands of Japanese Americans were taken to relocation camps throughout the United States during WWII. While I personally believe this was an infringement upon the rights of American citizens the courts viewed it as a way to decrease espionage and disloyalty against the war on Japan. This is the only time in history the court has upheld something like this. This clause does not just apply to discrimination based on race it also deals with discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. More recently there have been several cases dealing with sexual orientation and same sex marriage and whether the rights of the individuals in these circumstances is being violated. If you have not heard about the issues regarding same sex marriage then you have been living under a rock. Same sex marriage has become a major matter of political controversy in the past few years and has been a steady topic for debate. Most importantly why some states will acknowledge a union and why others will not or do not; but is this truly a violation of the Equal Protection Clause? Despite the fact that several states have legalized gay marriage many ask the question can marriage be regulated by the judicial system. According to the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) states do not have to recognize same sex marriages from other states and that the federal government would not recognize same sex marriage. In theory the government is trying to protect the sanctity as they see it of marriage which in most states is between a man and woman. Some view this as being unconstitutional while others believe that marriage is something that is controlled by the state and since our Constitution does not specifically give that power to Congress, marriage should continue to be regulated by each state. The issue that many have is that the state and federal government do not distinguish between civil marriage and religious marriage whether it be performed by a member of the clergy, or a religious officiate. Supporters of same sex marriage argue that equal protection requires equal access to civil benefits of marriage while opponents of gay marriage argue that there is a legitimate rational basis for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. As it stands now I do not know if this is something that will ever be overturned but I do believe that other major cases have been scrutinized by the courts and found to be liable for discrimination and maybe this and many other issues concerning America and its citizens deserve a more in depth look; I am more than certain that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for the Equal Protection Clause to consent to interracial marriage and yet in the case of Loving v. Virginia (1967) that’s exactly what happened. Perhaps that will be the same for same sex marriage if enough people fight for this right then lawmakers and states will have to wake up and pay attention.