In a reaffirmation of conservative principles, Maine voters yesterday repealed a State referendum that would have legalized same-sex marriage. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/04/maine.same.sex/index.html I believe that this latest vote should send a strong signal to State and federal legislatures across the nation about the general disposition of Americans toward traditional family values; and this disposition, in my opinion, provides justification for an amendment to the federal Constitution defining marriage as that between a man and a woman.
Within one year, this country has now seen two traditionally blue states reject a referendum that would have legalized same-sex marriage. Last November, California voters rejected such a referendum, and the same thing happened yesterday 3,000 miles away in Maine. What is significant about these two votes is that they were in States that traditionally have leaned Democrat, at least within recent elections. This indicates a disconnect between the views of legislators and judges, on the one hand, and the American public on the other.
Indeed, there is a growing trend toward validating same-sex marriage. After yesterday’s vote, there are now five states that have legalized same-sex marriage, either legisatively or judically: Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Moreover, civil unions with spousal-like rights are recognized in California and New Jersey. Furthermore, similar rights for domestic partners are recognized in D.C., Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. However, benefits under federal law continue to be denied to same-sex married couples. Dukeminier, Jesse, et al. Thus, there appears to be a growing trend around the country toward legalizing same-sex marriage.
Although the election results in California and Maine are not a very large sample of public sentiment toward same-sex marriage, the results are indeed suggestive, especially considering that these are democratic-leaning states. Clearly, a significant number of Americans disfavor same-sex marriage and do not believe it is an inherent right, nor believe that it is protected by the Equal Protection Clause. As a result, hopefully legislators will use these two election results, if they are confronted with the issue of same-sex marriage, to inform their views on the subject. Personally, I don’t think that same-sex marriage is protected under the Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, or any other Amendment of the Federal Constitution. There is nothing in the wording of the Amendments, in the ratification history, nor in the Supreme Court’s precedents that suggest same-sex marriage needs to be protected. Accordingly, to close the gap between the obvious disconnect between the views of judges and legislators, and a large segment of the American public, I would favor an amendment to the federal Constitution, defining marriage in the traditional sense. Doing so will reflect the will of a large segment of the American public, as reflected by the votes in California and Maine; will prevent any further disconnect between legislators and voters; and, most importantly, preserve the way the family unit should be conceived.
Lots of people used to think lots of things, like: women shouldn’t vote, women shouldn’t work, blacks shouldn’t vote, black shouldn’t work, black shouldn’t marry whites, and so on.
“Conservative family values”- huh? What, excatly, does that mean these days? Who represents this ideal – in the GOP or otherwise? Half, or more, of all “traditional” marriages end in divorce. And many of the marriages that don’t end in divorce probably should. Adultery is rampant, even in Congress. The ignorance and prejudices of many should not be masked by platitudes and empty phrases.
Drew, perhaps “conservative family values” was the wrong phrase to use to express my point. My basic point is that “marriage” is a term of art; it has a specific meaning that has persisted for centuries. That meaning does not contemplate two members of the same sex uniting. As a result, there is nothing wrong, “ignorant,” or “prejudice” about seeking to preserve that long-standing notion of marriage. Moreover, I don’t see how the fact that adultery is rampant in Congress, nor how the fact that at least half of traditional marriages end in divorce, has anything to do with how marriage should be defined. Even if adultlery was publicly acceptable and 90% of marriages ended in divorce, I would still argue that marriage has a specific meaning – as the union of a man and a woman.
As to your analogy with women or blacks not being able to vote or work, and the like, my response is that defining marriage in a particular way has nothing to do with any of those things. To the extent that defining marriage as that between a man and a woman denies certain protections to same-sex couples, I am all for civil unions and all sorts of protections for those couples, as already exist in many states not only for same-sex couples but also for domestic partners. I believe that same-sex couples should be entitled to the same protections as married couples. That being said, the marriage component remains its own separate entity and has nothing to do with this argument. Individuals can retain equal protection under the law even while marriage is defined as that between a man and a woman. Give same-sex couples equal protection under the law, but the marriage debate should stay out of this area.
Naturally, you passed over my most relevant comparison, which is that many used the same arguments about the “historical significance” of marriage as rationale for opposition to the marriage of different races (incl. men and women from different races). In fact, it took the Supreme Court – not public referndums – to overturn such bans.
Almost all claims to any assumed historical significance to man/woman “marriage” are anchored in religious faith (such as “two becoming one” or, for Christians, understanding marriage as the equivalent of Christ’s love for his church (i.e., total self-giving) ). As such, the democratic process (and the judicial one) must be mindful of this nation’s commitment to religous freedom. Leaving this sort of complicated, societal decision up to public referndums doesn’t do this – it simply demonstrates a failure of leadership or appropriate court intervention.
If you’re going to argue that we must allow same-sex marriage for the purpose of “religious freedom,” then does that mean you would permit polygamy or polyamory or any other type of relationship to fall within “marriage”? Surely, certain individuals practice polygamy in the name of religious freedom, most notably, Mormon fundamentalists. I am concerned that once we open the door for “non-conventional” types of marriage, it paves the way for all sorts of groups claiming to recognize their marriage for the sake of “religious freedom.” So to the extent that we allow same-sex marriage because of religious freedom, where do we draw the line?
The “slippery slope” argument is so stale and sophomoric it pains me to have to respond. I’m not sure, in practical terms, who the “all sorts of groups” with “non conventional” beliefs are who are staking claim to marriage rights. As we all know, there simply isn’t a mass movement of fringe groups making marriage arguments. You mention Mormons. And, I supposed I could ask you the same question – Given that you lend significant creedence to basing your marriage beliefs on faith-based definitions of marriage, would you not grant differing faith-based perspectives and rights to Mormons or other faiths? Is your argument that we must deny homosexuals marriage rights to ensure we have an argument to deny them to other groups as well? Yikes. Did I just slip back to the 1600s?
In the case of homosexuals we don’t need to create fringe, oddball scenarios to debase the concept of them marrying – we’re talking about two people, who love each other, and who want to be married under the law. Just like, perhaps, a black man and white woman, a white man and a white woman, or a latina women and a black man. In addition, we don’t need to worry about “drawing the line” – about one in four humans are born homosexuals. It’s a naturally occuring, non chosen, human condition. This is certainly not the case with someone who chooses to subscribe to Mormonism, or any other faith for that matter. Oh, and there are fewer than 14 million Mormons worldwide – about the size of Rio de Janeiro. So if they’re the largest “non conventional” group we need to address, I don’t think we need to scare people into worrying about where we “draw lines.”
My issues with polygamy are not faith based at all – they have much more to do with the rampant abuses and archaic subjectification of women that tend to exist in many polygamist, multi-party unions. It is these types of abuses that have led to bans on polygamy – not modern institutional prejudice against Mormons, who freely practice all other aspects of their faith openly and publically.
And, to be crystal clear, I am not arguing “that we must allow same-sex marriage for the purpose of “religious freedom”". What I am saying is that to deny homosexuals marriage rights based on a christian, faith-based definition of marriage is to make judgements and pass laws based on a single, faith-based concept. It’s flawed from the get-go and the “definition” simply doesn’t hold water – nor should we want it to, if we also want to claim that American is a beacon of religious freedom. Such “definitions” and arguments, given their narrow perspective, have and do run the risk of breeding institutional prejudice…just like they did when they were used to deny inter-racial marriage 30 years ago.
“The “slippery slope” argument is so stale and sophomoric it pains me to have to respond.”
How about responding with legitimate reasons for why it is wrong? You think that reducing Mormonism, for example, to a small statistic suffices in dismissing the argument. Putting aside your willingness to marginalize a group of people, you need to make a case for why opening the door for one group (homosexuals) shouldn’t open the door for any others.
Your examples of interracial marriages are also irrelevant because of one common strand between them – they are between a man and a woman.
I wasn’t marginalizing or dismissing Mormonism. I clearly articulated that polygamy has been banned, and is promblemmatic to me and others, for numerous non-religious reasons which have nothing to do with legal or religious definitions of marriage or issues of prejudice. You apparently chose not to read those parts of my post. Surprise, surprise.
My point in defining their size and reach was to point out that we don’t need to create hypothetical problems with other, yet to be named groups, when the single, real example touches an extremely small percentage of the populuation.
Jack, your revisionist history and selective reasoning on inter-racial marriage is dangerous at best. The exact same religious/definitional and slippery slope arguments were used to ban inter-racial marriage up through the 60s and 70s (judges, if you look at the numerous cases and decisions, repeatedly stated that interracial marriage was contrary to God’s will and somehow ‘unnatural’). These type of scare tactics, ugly rhetoric, and hyperbolic hypotheticals do nothing but breed institutional prejudice.
What revisionist history? I’d make any comments about history.
Anyway, I did read your entire post, but I those points you specified don’t help your argument. It seems to me that you are claiming that there needs to be a critical mass in order for legislation to be changed. Apparently if 25% of people are gay (where did you come up with that number…) then we should change the laws, but if there are only 14 million Mormons, we shouldn’t. So, Drew, where do you draw the line? And why is you who gets to draw it?
No, Jack, I’m claiming that there are a range of other reasons – that have nothing to do with definitions of marriage – why polygamy (the example posed) does not deserve the same treatment under the law as marriage between 2 homosexual people. I’m also arguing that there’s little rational need to worry about “drawing lines” when you haven’t offered a single other example of a group or segment of our society that makes claims to other marriage combinations or structures.
In addition, I’m arguiung that prohibiting gay people from marrying based on faith driven definitions of marriage, follows, exactly, the same flawed reasoning that kept inter-racial marriages illegal for hundreds of years. Your “revision” was to suggest that it was the one man/one woman issue that eventually turned the tide on interracial marriage bans/perceptions. That’s simply factually incorrect – if you care, you can read all about the fight/arguments/decisions to legalize inter-racial marriage on any number of legal or civil rights websites. I have a hunch you don’t.
“you haven’t offered a single other example of a group or segment of our society that makes claims to other marriage combinations or structures. ”
Groups and organizations don’t interest me. This country is about the individual, so I can imagine literally any number of desired marriage possibilities that would necessarily have to be considered – polygamy among them.
As for my revisionist history, I never claimed that the male/female dichotomy turned the tide on interracial marriage. In fact, you would have had to take some major leaps to make that connection. I simply said that your analogy was irrelevant.
Well, Jack, it’s tough for me to understand how you see my analogy as irrelevant given that the exact same arguments were used to keep the inter-racial marriage bans in place that are now being used to keep same sex marriage bans in place. That’s not only not irrelevant, it’s downright damning and illustrative of the innate flaws in the definitional arguments posed by 2nd Circuit and implicitly supported by you.
I guess I’ve just stumbled upon a couple of people who have life long passions and unending reverence for legal, faith based definitions of marriage. I get it – you simply respect and revere these definitions too much – your dedication to and reliance on them too great – to possibly consider augmenting them for the sake of social progress and equality. Any suggestion that these same definitions and arguments were used to overtly subjegate people/races in the past must be dismissed as irrelevant because your life relies so significantly on these definitions remaining static and narrowly interpreted.
Just sad. Stop hiding behind hypocritical arguments and subjective definitions and stop fearing people who are different that you.
Good tactic – accusing me of being afraid of people who are different than me. That’s always a clear indicator to me that I’ve lost the argument. Damn.
Your non response to the content/body of my post is the clearest indicator of all.
Seems to me that if a definition (marriage) is outdated, it’s probably a good idea to change it. It happens regularly – it’s a healthy progression. Preserving it for the sake of preservation of a word…not sure I see the point/value or why this word would be immune to change. Nor do I see the point in conserving it because you’re afraid that Jimbob will want to marry a pumpkin (Happy Halloween!). We’re talking about a giant subset of the population that’s been denied a basic right that they are fighting very hard to obtain. If you can’t see the parallels between this and the prejudice of our country’s past (which have been rightly fixed and now almost seem absurd), you’re blind.