This has been a month of forward leaps in the campaign for gay-marriage — or so it is said. The Iowa Supreme Court struck down a ban on same-sex marriage, providing a toehold in the heartland. And the Vermont Legislature legalized gay marriage, marking the first time that elected lawmakers, rather than state judges, initiated such change.
Significant developments both, but they are part of an evolution, not a revolution. The story really started 20 years ago, when Denmark offered the first civil unions. They give same-sex couples rights and benefits similar to those in a heterosexual marriage.
In 2000, Vermont initiated civil unions in the United States. Three years later, Massachusetts sanctioned gay marriage, as did Connecticut last October. So the events in Iowa and Vermont were bricks laid upon an already tested foundation.
There's much to be said for letting states settle the question of gay marriage, one step and one jurisdiction at a time. This pragmatic approach does not always sit well with gay rights activists. They consider marriage a basic human right that should not be honored in one place and abridged in another.
But the alternative — a U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming the right to gay marriage — would only slow things down. It could turn into another Roe v. Wade, the controversial 1973 ruling that guaranteed a right to abortion and has divided the country ever since. Even pro-choice legal experts find Roe problematic.
And one can't assume that the court would rule in favor of gay marriage. It might not. Further, turning the issue into a national controversy could revive the effort to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
In any case, domestic law (which includes marriage) is traditionally left to the states, and that's where it should stay.
For supporters of gay marriage, a series of peaceful advances at the state level paves a smoother path than a titanic battle on the national stage.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously called states "the laboratories of democracy." Being closer to the people and more attuned to the local culture, states are better equipped than the federal government to introduce new social policies. Innovations are usually first tried in the places most receptive to them.
It helps to remember that even in liberal Massachusetts, people were of two minds about gay marriage. In a poll done shortly after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court threw out the ban on same-sex marriages, over half those residents surveyed said they wanted a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to between one man and one woman. But a poll taken three years later found that 56 percent of the Massachusetts respondents would oppose such an amendment.
What happened in Massachusetts? Gay marriage had become legal, and the sky hadn't fallen in. People got used to the idea.
A survey last October of Iowans found that more than 62 percent of those surveyed opposed same-sex marriage. It will be interesting to follow Iowa opinion in the likely event that gay marriage goes into effect.
Of course, the road to same-sex marriage is not straight. There have been a number of hairpin turns back. Last November, voters adopted state constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriage in Arizona and Florida and narrowly in California.
The wind is clearly at the advocates' back. Younger Americans are especially accepting of homosexuality. As they replace their elders, and gay marriage comes to seem routine, the bans will fall one by one.
Activists should note: An idea whose time has not fully come often arrives faster when it takes the slow route through the states.
To find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2009 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
|
 |
Comments
|
2 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Ma'am;... If gay people can have the relationship unmolested, they already have the best part of the form of marriage... But in getting formal recognition and formal protection they only drive a larger part of the population out of the form, which brings nearer the day when the form of government will not function against the resistence of the people... The gays already should have civil rights...But the way democracy is concieved of by most people, it is majority rule, and this has always allowed a mere majority to deny rights to minorities.... If it were consensus democracy, in the only fashion democracy has been enduring, then all rights would be protected, and there would have to be some injury or damage done before any right could be denied....All I can say is you go gays...It is just one more thing to the religious right, and one more excuse to forget about the national government... And to be honest, not one of these states could stand alone, but we are not so far from a new confederacy, and as the government has begun to notice, they are the ones who are trained in the military arts, and they are the ones most able to express their hate and fear in acts of violence... So when we look at the resistence on the right to Mr. Obama trying to knit up the economy, and to make our quasi democracy work for people, think of those who will take their cue from the foxes and the Limbaughs, and not co-operate at all, and will do all within their power to see the old form fall...I am rooting for them, even while I see they have the most now, and the most to lose...There is a lot of hatred on both sides for the government, but only the right is crazy enough to strike the first blow, and if they do so, I think the government will find it has no moral support, because it is morally insupportable.... Government has failed us, and mostly, it has failed...It has not failed the right more than the left... It has only served a few, and tried to satisfy the bare minimum...But only the angry right which has been pushed into a deeper poverty for which they have always held in contempt the blacks and hispanics will not go easily into that night... I expect them to fight, and if the chips are down, I expect the military will go with them....And at that point, marriage rights for gays will be the least of any ones worries...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:56 AM
|
|
|
|
Froma,
Your commentary leaves out many important points. First, the federal government has not repealed the unconstitutional so called "Defense of Marriage Act," denying federal marriage recognition (including the ability to file joint federal income tax returns and share social security benefits) to born gay/lesbian taxpayers whose states have same sex marriage equality. In other words, born gaylesbian taxpayers in CT, MA, IA, and VT who were legally civilly married in their states are seen as single by our federal government. You can't have it both ways, Froma. You want the states to decide, but they can't since the federal government does not accept same sex civil marriage equality for born gay/lesbian taxpayers/citizens/voters and their familes?
Second, civil marriage began as a white male land owner owning various wives as his property. It changed into one male and one female of the same race. When the Supreme Court overturned various states' laws prohibiting civil interracial marriage, polls showed Americans were against it 70% to 30%. The court did this because the US Constitution guarantees equal civil rights for all. Whether you accept it or not, that includes ALL, regardless of one's inborn sexual orientation. Marriage equality for born gay/lesbians in the US is polling at 50/50 now in the US. Regardless, the majority should never have the right to vote for the civil rights of the majortiy. We are all guaranteed equal civil rights by our US Constitution.
Third, in other countries that have same sex civil marriage equality (the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, Canada), civil marriage has flourished. When one group is being discriminated against, all suffer. When everyone has the equal civil right of marriage, everyone's family flourishes. Children are protected. All families thrive.
Finally, how would you like it, Froma, if you were told that you could not marry the person you loved? How would you explain to your children that their parents are married in one state but not in another, or not in the eyes of the federal government to which you pay taxes? How would like it if you couldn't visit your husband in a hospital, make decisions about his well being, inherit his possessions, stay in your home after he passes away, make medical decisions for your children, and be placed on your husband's family medical plan at work. Only civil marriage ensures these things in the US. This has nothing to do with religions and who they marry or don't marry. It has to do with the fact that all taxpayers/citizens in the US deserve equal rights now. Since you have a public forum on this topic throughout the country, shame on you for supporting hate, homophobia and misinformation rather than the facts. I'm sure you are responding now that you don't hate anyone. Froma, anything less than equal civil rights for all taxpayers/citizens is hate. If you were denied your equal civil rights for you and your family, you would understand. Please stop the hate and do the right thing by advocating equal civil rights for born gay/lesbian taxpayers/citizens/voters and our families.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Mark
Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:03 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
