Adam and Steve
Gay marriage is back in the news this week – as if it was ever gone – as the Massachusetts legislature passed a constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage while legalizing civil unions. This is just the first step in a convoluted process which requires the amendment to be passed again by the legislature during its next two year session, and then approved by the voters in November 2006. In the meantime, all 200 seats in the state legislature are up for reelection this November. Since the amendment passed with only a four vote margin, both sides will be fighting to retain as many members as possible.
Ironically, the lawmakers are fighting for a compromise which satisfies no one. Gay rights advocates, who normally would be pleased with the prospect of state sanctioned civil unions, see the amendment as a step back from the full marriage rights they had been promised. At the same time, conservatives rankle that the only way to ban gay marriage is to approve civil unions.
Personally, I believe they should all hang their heads in shame.
The controversy began, as you may recall, last November, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to discriminate against a class of people based on their sexual orientation, and gave the legislature six months to rewrite the state’s marriage laws to include gay couples. That six month period is up May 17.
The legislature’s response was swift. Rather than even considering righting the inequity, they decided to write discrimination into the constitution. “Hey, if it’s unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, best change the constitution!” They behaved like a teenager who, because his mother tells him she doesn’t want him stoned in her house, simply doesn’t come home when he’s stoned. It’s as if baby eaters had a strong enough lobby that they could compel the legislature to legalize baby eating. Passing a law doesn’t make it right.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court are what George Bush refers to as “activist judges” – activist apparently being a bushphrase for someone who does their job. Mr. President, perhaps the word you’re looking for is “active.” Other activist judges are the ones who decided it might be all right for adults of all persuasions to engage in safe and consensual sexual activity in the privacy of their own home. That this decision came less than a year ago is still somewhat shocking. Even at that time, rabid Fat Tony Scalia saw gay marriage on the horizon. Of course, he also fretted that “laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are … called into question by today's decision.” At the time, I wrote, “What, no cat and dogs living together? Once again, homosexuals, prostitutes and animal fanciers find themselves in the same category. … That Antonin Scalia thinks there are or should be laws against masturbation, of all things, is bizarre to me. And isn’t fornication just unmarried sex? Who has time to round up all the fornicators?”
This clash between the various branches of government is as old as our nation, and is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. The Supreme Courts are meant to be safe from the vagaries of public opinion and political pressure, and their members are supposed to be knowledgeable in both the letter and spirit of the law. It is the nature of the Supreme Courts to hand down controversial and unpopular opinions. 50 years ago, Strom Thurmond railed against The Supremes for their decision outlawing school segregation. He joined with 18 senators and 77 representatives in presenting “The Southern Manifesto,” which read (in small part), “We regard the decisions of the Supreme Court in the school cases as a clear abuse of judicial power. It climaxes a trend in the Federal Judiciary undertaking to legislate, in derogation of the authority of Congress, and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the States and the people.” Those words would fit very easily into George W. Bush’s mouth today.
I am annoyed, as ever, by the sidesteps and fancy dance politicians are taking around this issue. Dennis Kucinich is the only one who has come out clearly in favor of the rights of gays to marry. Last July, he said, "there should be a federal law that would allow gay couples to be married" because "we cannot have states making separate rules with respect to basic human rights." John Kerry is in the same boat as his Massachusetts compatriots, coming out in favor of civil unions which bestow the full 1,049 benefits married couples receive, without calling it marriage. As for Bush, who knows what he really thinks. If anything. The way he Clintons around the issue, it’s difficult to tell. He has called for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but has said state legislatures could define "legal arrangements other than marriage." (Many gay marriage proponents feel that the amendment as phrased would prevent states from offering full rights to civilly united couples.) He wants to defend marriage, but he also wants to defend the rights of gays to live their lives in peace. It’s the political version of that “love the sinner hate the sin” policy that plagues Christians of every stripe.
I’m not surprised that politicians are afraid to come out in favor of gay marriage. You can’t blame them for being gutless and more than you can blame Pavlov’s dogs for salivating when the bell rings. If we wanted them to speak their minds, we shouldn’t have hit them across the snout with a rolled up magazine every time they tried. Some may say Bush is standing up for what he believes by supporting The Amendment. This might be the case if gay marriage was a plague sweeping the nation. As it is, the rash of gay weddings of late are a response to the threat of a gay marriage ban, not the cause. According to the most generous figures, gays and lesbians account for one tenth of the population. How much guts does it take to trample the rights of such a small minority?
I understand that many people are uncomfortable with the notion of gay marriage. I understand that many people are uncomfortable with the notion of gay sex. (Unless, of course, it involves two women and a Penthouse magazine.) I am uncomfortable with some notions of gay sex. My parents, like many of their generation, were uncomfortable with the notion of marriage between blacks and whites. But their discomfort was not enough to make such marriages illegal. At least not after 1967, when the Supreme Court, once again “undertaking to legislate,” overturned the miscegenation laws which outlawed interracial marriage in 16 states. The trial judge in the original case – amusingly known as Loving v. Virginia – said in his ruling, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” These words would fit a little less easily into George Bush’s mouth, and probably wouldn’t come out very well.
The fact is, you can’t legislate away the future. The Federal Marriage Amendment is Prohibition all over again, a “noble experiment” designed to legislate morality and destined to be repealed, should it ever pass, which is highly unlikely. More than that, it is a red herring, a sop to the far right, to make them feel safe in a world not of their making. But it’s all a sham, and anyone is Washington with a head on their shoulders knows it. Gay marriage is coming – maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life.
That’s what I want to hear a candidate say.
Ironically, the lawmakers are fighting for a compromise which satisfies no one. Gay rights advocates, who normally would be pleased with the prospect of state sanctioned civil unions, see the amendment as a step back from the full marriage rights they had been promised. At the same time, conservatives rankle that the only way to ban gay marriage is to approve civil unions.
Personally, I believe they should all hang their heads in shame.
The controversy began, as you may recall, last November, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional to discriminate against a class of people based on their sexual orientation, and gave the legislature six months to rewrite the state’s marriage laws to include gay couples. That six month period is up May 17.
The legislature’s response was swift. Rather than even considering righting the inequity, they decided to write discrimination into the constitution. “Hey, if it’s unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, best change the constitution!” They behaved like a teenager who, because his mother tells him she doesn’t want him stoned in her house, simply doesn’t come home when he’s stoned. It’s as if baby eaters had a strong enough lobby that they could compel the legislature to legalize baby eating. Passing a law doesn’t make it right.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court are what George Bush refers to as “activist judges” – activist apparently being a bushphrase for someone who does their job. Mr. President, perhaps the word you’re looking for is “active.” Other activist judges are the ones who decided it might be all right for adults of all persuasions to engage in safe and consensual sexual activity in the privacy of their own home. That this decision came less than a year ago is still somewhat shocking. Even at that time, rabid Fat Tony Scalia saw gay marriage on the horizon. Of course, he also fretted that “laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are … called into question by today's decision.” At the time, I wrote, “What, no cat and dogs living together? Once again, homosexuals, prostitutes and animal fanciers find themselves in the same category. … That Antonin Scalia thinks there are or should be laws against masturbation, of all things, is bizarre to me. And isn’t fornication just unmarried sex? Who has time to round up all the fornicators?”
This clash between the various branches of government is as old as our nation, and is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. The Supreme Courts are meant to be safe from the vagaries of public opinion and political pressure, and their members are supposed to be knowledgeable in both the letter and spirit of the law. It is the nature of the Supreme Courts to hand down controversial and unpopular opinions. 50 years ago, Strom Thurmond railed against The Supremes for their decision outlawing school segregation. He joined with 18 senators and 77 representatives in presenting “The Southern Manifesto,” which read (in small part), “We regard the decisions of the Supreme Court in the school cases as a clear abuse of judicial power. It climaxes a trend in the Federal Judiciary undertaking to legislate, in derogation of the authority of Congress, and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the States and the people.” Those words would fit very easily into George W. Bush’s mouth today.
I am annoyed, as ever, by the sidesteps and fancy dance politicians are taking around this issue. Dennis Kucinich is the only one who has come out clearly in favor of the rights of gays to marry. Last July, he said, "there should be a federal law that would allow gay couples to be married" because "we cannot have states making separate rules with respect to basic human rights." John Kerry is in the same boat as his Massachusetts compatriots, coming out in favor of civil unions which bestow the full 1,049 benefits married couples receive, without calling it marriage. As for Bush, who knows what he really thinks. If anything. The way he Clintons around the issue, it’s difficult to tell. He has called for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but has said state legislatures could define "legal arrangements other than marriage." (Many gay marriage proponents feel that the amendment as phrased would prevent states from offering full rights to civilly united couples.) He wants to defend marriage, but he also wants to defend the rights of gays to live their lives in peace. It’s the political version of that “love the sinner hate the sin” policy that plagues Christians of every stripe.
I’m not surprised that politicians are afraid to come out in favor of gay marriage. You can’t blame them for being gutless and more than you can blame Pavlov’s dogs for salivating when the bell rings. If we wanted them to speak their minds, we shouldn’t have hit them across the snout with a rolled up magazine every time they tried. Some may say Bush is standing up for what he believes by supporting The Amendment. This might be the case if gay marriage was a plague sweeping the nation. As it is, the rash of gay weddings of late are a response to the threat of a gay marriage ban, not the cause. According to the most generous figures, gays and lesbians account for one tenth of the population. How much guts does it take to trample the rights of such a small minority?
I understand that many people are uncomfortable with the notion of gay marriage. I understand that many people are uncomfortable with the notion of gay sex. (Unless, of course, it involves two women and a Penthouse magazine.) I am uncomfortable with some notions of gay sex. My parents, like many of their generation, were uncomfortable with the notion of marriage between blacks and whites. But their discomfort was not enough to make such marriages illegal. At least not after 1967, when the Supreme Court, once again “undertaking to legislate,” overturned the miscegenation laws which outlawed interracial marriage in 16 states. The trial judge in the original case – amusingly known as Loving v. Virginia – said in his ruling, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” These words would fit a little less easily into George Bush’s mouth, and probably wouldn’t come out very well.
The fact is, you can’t legislate away the future. The Federal Marriage Amendment is Prohibition all over again, a “noble experiment” designed to legislate morality and destined to be repealed, should it ever pass, which is highly unlikely. More than that, it is a red herring, a sop to the far right, to make them feel safe in a world not of their making. But it’s all a sham, and anyone is Washington with a head on their shoulders knows it. Gay marriage is coming – maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life.
That’s what I want to hear a candidate say.
posted by John Bliss at
9:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home