In 2003, the supreme court of the state of Massachusetts ruled, 4
to 3, that the state constitution demands that everyone, regardless of
gender, be treated the same under the law. They extended that clause to
marriage, and thus stated that the legislature could not write laws
that stated which genders could and could not be covered by this legal
construct.
The the state of the union address, President Bush made the
strongest possible statements that he believes marriage should only be
between a man and a woman. He stated that the government has
overwhelming policy interest to promote this. Much political hay is
being made, as the polls show that most Americans support the idea that
marriage should only be between one man and one woman.
My position is that this issue is a civil rights issue. If a
particular church wants to only sanctify certain forms of marriage from
a religious point of view, then it may do so -- such is religion
protected in this country. However, if the government makes a body of
law, it must be applied equally to all citizens. The fact that most
Americans disagree is not the predominant point. Most Americans in the
South wanted the Jim Crow laws, yet they were morally wrong. The state
had no business supporting segregation.
In the time of civil rights, the important question was the moral
question. Are blacks and whites equal? How can we best bring them to
equality, even assuming that majorities in America consider them
inferior? I see the issue of homosexuality the same way. Some people
feel vehemently that homosexuality is wrong and substandard, but we
should foster and support all loving relationships.
I am bothered by the press's treatment of the Massachusetts
decision. Why have they
ignored the fact that the decision was deeply split? What were the
arguments of the 3 dissenting justices? What were the legal arguments?
Do other states have similar statements in their constitutions? Could
the same argument be applied to the US Constitution? The California
constitution?
At the time, all we heard was how the democrats are now in a pickle,
because gay
marriage is unpopular, and they support it. In fact, the democratic
presidential candidates are fairly evenly split on the issue.
Lieberman, for example, is of course against gay marriage. Dean and
Kucinich are for it. Kerry splits the difference, and advocates "civil
union" - the same position as Republician Schwartzenegger (according to
CNN).
Here's an opinion piece written by Kucinich that I lifted from
"PlantOut" -
by Dennis J. Kucinich
September
19, 2003
My overriding philosophy on issues of gay rights is that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples should be equal in the eyes of the law. Period. This equality before the law includes marriage, a position that separates me from other Democratic presidential candidates. While it is up to religious institutions to sanction marriages they deem appropriate, I believe the civil law must treat all couples equally.
Portraying same-sex marriage as primarily a religious issue is an attempt to promote fear and division based on religion. Americans know that a number of mainstream religions already perform same-sex ceremonies to celebrate these unions in the eyes of God. As this trend grows, it makes some fearful. Our country did not become great pandering to fear; we are a courageous people and must stand up to fear-mongering attempts to divide us against ourselves.
I go further than supporting civil unions
for same-sex couples at the
state level. Unlike other candidates, I believe that -- as with the
Civil Rights laws of the 1960s -- federal law must protect civil
unions, and that no state has a right to abridge basic rights to
privacy. To suggest that same-sex marriage is a state issue is like
saying that women and African Americans should enjoy civil rights --
but that such decisions should ultimately be left to the states. That's
not a pro-civil rights position.
I find Kucinish's position to be argued well - far better than what
I've heard on the radio. This is a civil rights issue at the same level
as voting rights. For reasons that I personally find bizzare,
many people want to
get
married, and consider it the pinnacle of their lives. The media's
portrayal of marriage has been nothing short of stunning. Although I
find
other elements of life more rewarding, I recognize this drive.
A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
The outcome of this debate is important - and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.
It's a wonderful statement - that each individual has dignity and value, but that some individuals should not have the support of the state in some regards. It's similar to the "seperate but equal" argument. We should value black people, and keep them in their schools and in their bus seats.