Government Role
The federal government has not taken up the issue of gay marriage, leaving the states to decide what is best for their constituents. Who is deciding the issue - the elected representatives, the courts, or the public? When it comes to the subject of rights should we be giving decision making authority to state senators and congressmen? Or should there be a direct vote by the people of that state? Should we have a politically charged, potentially compromised bill jammed through a legilsature or should we have a mob rule of the citizens of that state deciding these issues? And then when something has been voted on, either by the representatives or the public, can the court decide to just reverse the decision based on its constitutionality?
Ideology of the Parties Involved
Who is representing each side of the debate? After the law was passed permitting same-sex marriage most of the country nodded with understanding, since California is a blue state which tends to be more liberal on social issues. Proposition 8 was primarily backed by conservative citizens of that state with lots of support coming from Christian groups like the Mormons. So we have the liberal government officials on one side and a conservative mob on the other. To make things more complicated, the law is not clearly written, and does not define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Originalist justices like Antonin Scalia would say that the original writers of our constitution (and of state constitutions generally) were written by people who understood marriage in the traditional sense - between one man and one woman. So the two sides are in a fight over what the law says or should say. Liberals have a difficult case to make because they have to prove marriage is a guaranteed right or persuade representatives to pass a law making it clear it is a guaranteed right. Conservatives need to make the case that the way the state constitution is written should stay that way and provides no room to overturn a precedent of that sort.
"I Want to Be "MARRIED"
Why isn't gay marriage demanded in other parts of the world like Europe? Part of it has to do with some socially liberal governments there. But gays in Europe seem fine with civil unions. They do not care as much about the name of what it is they have. A question one should ask is, "Why do gays want to participate in a broken heterosexual institution?" Of course that would be a reference to the divorce rate among heterosexuals and rates of domestic violence, etc. It makes sense that gays would want to be "like everyone else," which makes sense to me if we're talking equal treatment - like being able to visit a sick relative or adopting a child or tax benefits. But isn't marriage kind of, you know, old fashioned? The label I mean. Why couldn't it be called Alloyage and they could say we're Alloyed?
To me, conservatives are on the losing side of the argument, especially because the group making up Prop 8 supporters is full of evangelical christians and mormons. Those groups claim secular reasons for their opposition to same-sex marriage (like its constitutionality, effect on children, etc.) when their real motivation is fear of change and the claim they are doing God's will as commanded in their scriptures. Also, they have to ignore changes to constitutions that expanded rights for people like minorities and women. The position comes off as bigotry, even if that is not the way they really feel. Unfortunately the "I have nothing against gays personally, and have many gay friends" cliche doesn't get them very far in this debate. It will take a while but eventually I predict there will be a Federal amendment granting gays the right to marry in every state. Conflicts of this sort do help us to think about exactly what a "right" is and how they can be agreed upon.
No comments:
Post a Comment