April 06, 2004
The Case For Gay Marriages
This posting is a direct rebuttal to my fellow editor’s article on the right, entitled The Case Against Gay Marriage.
First, a few points:
- The Institution of Marriage as regulated by the many States is a Civil undertaking not religious. While a couple can decide to get married by a church, they are in no way under any obligation to do so. The state issues the marriage license not the church. True a member of the clergy is sanctioned by the state to sign a marriage certificate, but so is a Justice of The Peace. Bottom line: a marriage is not legal unless, and until, a State sanctioned marriage license is obtained.
- The religious issue is separate from the Civil issue. Churches are free to decide on religious grounds whether they will sanction Gay marriage or not, the State as a public entity cannot. For the state it is a matter of equal protection and due process before the law, religion plays no part; separation of church and state doctrine.
- Families formed by marriage are the backbone of any society. It is in the family unit that children are supposed to be protected, nurtured, educated, and made ready to enter society. Families provide stabilityand form neighborhoods and communities in which schools and other civic activities are set. Families are more than tax breaks and contracts, they are the basic underpinnings of human existence, and have been since the beginning of recorded human history; the same history that shows that the breakdown of the family unit is a major contributing factor in societal disintegration.
- The Constitution of the United States is a blueprint for government, the main body (first seven articles) of which, does not address the rights of the people. The Bill of Rights was an afterthought. And I chafe to call it a contract. Contracts can be broken, contracts end; the Bll of Rights spells out our rights under law, rights that cannot be put away by law. But I agree that the constitution is no place to address the issue of Gay Marriage.
- There is no such thing as “Activist Judges,” only judges that are doing their jobs in our Republican form of government while following the doctrine of checks and balances. The religious right (Conservatives) brands anyone who does not agree with them anti-something; the truth is the judges are doing what they are supposed to do: interpret the law as written by legislators, and or as written in the state constitutions. The Massachusetts Court of Supreme Justice did what it was supposed to do: interpret Massachusetts law governing the Institution of marriage, held against the light of the Massachusetts constitution, which guarantees equal protection & due process before the law. If not judges to interpret law, then who?
- Both the state and federal governments have a stake in marriage; the state because it regulates the institution, and the federal government because certain entitlements—Social Security, Taxes, Medicare, and military survivors benefits—are based on marriage. So Civil Unions for Gays and lesbians will not fit the bill unless and until they are recognized by the federal government. Even then, we are back to the “Separate But Equal” doctrine which the Supreme Court overturned in Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education.
Conservatives assert that allowing Gay Marriage will hurt the Institution of Marriage; I ask how? and they have no answers. So I ask again, how will allowing Gay marriage hurt the Institution of Marriage? How are children harmed?
I think, no, I am certain, that families formed as a result of Gay marriage will only strengthen, not denigrate the Institution. How can children suffer under the mantle of love and caring which intact gay headed households can provide?
Gay marriage as regulated and sanctioned by the many States is a Civil Institution not religious, period, and should be approached as such. It is an Equal Protection and Due Process under Law issue. For the many States there is no other consideration.
Posted by V. Edward Martin at April 6, 2004 09:38 AMI, frankly, agree that gays should be able to marry when you consider that homosexuality is natural condition shared by humans and animals alike. Statistically, aproximately 10% of a given population will exhibit homosexual behavior. There may well be a genetic component involved.
I recently had a friend that I grew up next door to contact me and informed me that he and his sister were both gay. I hadn’t spoke to him in 25 years. They seem to be good people and I’m sure it’s noit been easy on them living in our society with these feelings.
I understand the religious right not wanting the tradition of marriage to be associated with something they abhor. Perhaps we should just call it to be garried. Apologies to any Gary’s out there. I am joking ..sort of…but I am also serious that they should have all the rights of anyone else, and some accomodation could be made for the tradition of marriage.
Posted by: Greg at April 6, 2004 11:20 AMI seem to be way out of sync on this issue.
Everyone wants to talk about the “sanctity of marriage” morality, courts overstepping their bounds, religion, etc.
None of this really matters…if such prohibitions are unconstitutional. I sort of thought this would trump all such arguments.
Oh and on a related topic…religious objections based on the “abomination” description in the bible (leviticus, I believe).
Doesn’t this same portion of the bible allow for selling your daughter, allowing you to own slaves, stoning your neighbors if they work on the sabbath and / or planting two different crops in the same field.
I am really out of step.
Posted by: George Kunz at April 7, 2004 01:15 AMMr. Martin, this was an excellent treatise on the issue from the perspective of the state’s interest in the issue supported by constitutions and precedential rulings.
It is indeed obvious that the general public believes laws should conform to thier will, including constitutions. One of the great points you make is that we are a great nation precisely because we accept being governed by the rule of law, and NOT the rule people like Kings and Queens or popular despots.
What is troubling by implication from your article is the intense will of millions of Americans to refute governance by the rule of law (attacking judges as activist and trying to lithmus test appointees according to popular or powerful minority interests). Indeed, our system of rule of law is under attack from many angles, political parties attempt to destroy separation of powers, Presidents do as well, the Supreme Court now golfs and cavorts with particular political affiliations destroying the concept of neutrality which has long been the hallmark and cornerstone of this rule of law society.
There are many places in the world where rule of law is not present, and they seeding grounds for anarchists, terrorists, and masses of desperate and oppressed people. This is what our future has in store for us, as we
1) lose sight of organized crime’s tentacles reaching deep into our halls of government in the name of corporations
2) polarize politics with religious influences
3) specialize education into political camps
4) place single issues in elections higher than adherence to, and upholding of, the Constitution of the U.S.
5) and most devastating of all to our future, as we swing wide the doors to influential money interests in protection of electability instead of keeping popular and public voter interests above all other influences save the Constitution.
Posted by: David R. Remer at April 7, 2004 07:00 AMIt seems to me that having gay marriages would not have an effect on the other members of our society. The essence of the issue seems to be wether or not you consider it detrimental to our society to have homosexuals be married. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with a person being gay. This is an attempt by the religious right to enforce their belief that being gay is against nature and god. I would love to live in a country where gay people are afforded the right of marriage, because it would show tolerance and acceptance. It reminds me of those people who said that because you were black, you couldn’t vote. I think a reasonable compromise would be the creation of a civil union, but I support gay marriages 100%. I would like to see more marriages in America based on love to help displace those torn apart by divorce. I just don’t see the harm it would do.
Posted by: Frank Maker at April 8, 2004 04:36 AMI am for gay marriages because as a joke writer it provides furtile writing material. Such as… A gay fellow goes in for a prostate exam and the doctor looks in and sees a ribbon dangling out of the guy’s rectum. So the doctor pulls on the ribbon and out pops a dozen roses. When the doctor tells this fellow he just pulled a dozen long stem red roses out of his ass, the first thing the gay fellow demands is to see the card. I dont think this would be as funny if this was about a straight fellow. Does anyone agree or disagree?
Posted by: Johnny Carson II at April 11, 2004 09:32 PM
