Same-Sex Marriage in Political Spotlight; Senate Says No

Updated 7 June
The rhetoric in the Senate reached a fever pitch as it prepared to vote on a constitutional amendment, proposed by Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO), which would ban same-sex marriage. Allard asserts, "Make no mistake about it, traditional marriage is under assault."

But as expected, when push came to shove, the Senate failed (49-48) to end debate and proceed to a vote on SJR 1.

Allard's claim is hardly backed up by evidence. A quick look at what's happened in the 50 states in the past few years shows this: Same-sex marriage is legal in only one state, Massachusetts. Conversely, 19 have state constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage -- some even prohibit civil unions. Another 26 have laws on the books that mirror the federal Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996.

But you can tell it's an election year: politicians trot out the emotional issues. President Bush, for example, has again called on Congress to pass the amendment. When did he last make this appeal? In the run up to the 2004 election.

Back in 2000 ... his rhetoric was quite a bit different. Then it was a state's rights issue:

"The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Presidential Primary Debate, 2/15/00]

However, you don't have to go that far in the past to see how the tune has changed. (Is this a "flip-flop"?) Writing in the Washington Post, E. J. Dionne Jr. points out that in January 2005 -- just after winning re-election -- Bush said:

"Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen," Bush said then. "I'd take their admonition seriously."

Pandering?
Democrats and even some Republicans are calling this political pandering. Two years ago the proposal garnered a paltry 48 votes, far less than the required 67.

Voice of America quotes Bruce Fein, former Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Reagan administration:

The political motivation behind this is simply not to advance a conservative political principle, but simply to advance the agenda that is essential to the Bush administration's popular support and the Republican Party's popular support going into the 2006 elections... That seems to me, when it comes to a matter of such high moment as amending the Constitution, to rank no higher than a very squalid motive.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) opposes same-sex marriage but believes this is a state issue. He says:

The reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another... This is another one of the president's efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America.

But Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) -- a possible 2008 Presidential candidate -- wrote Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN):

In order to protect the institution of marriage, we must prevent it from being redefined by judges like those here in Massachusetts... Once a society establishes that it is legally indifferent between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, how can one preserve any practice which favors the union of a man and a woman?

Amendment Text
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

A Thought Question
Will America's prohibition on same-sex marriage go the route of prohibitions against interfaith marriages and interracial ones? The interfaith prohibition was not a legal one. However, the interracial one was.

In fact, the US Supreme Court upheld the prohibition in Pace v Alabama (1883). Almost a hundred years later, the Court reversed itself in Loving v Virginia (1967). However, laws prohibiting interracial marriage remained on the books until 2000. (The last state to repeal its law was Alabama, but 40 percent of the voters wanted to retain it.)

The 1967 decision rested in part on the 14th amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...

What happened in this case? Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia in 1958; interracial marriage was legal in DC. However, Jeter and Loving were residents of Virginia, where interracial marriage was illegal. They were charged and pled guilty. The trial judge wrote:

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.

The Supreme Court of Virginia upheld the convictions. But the US Supreme Court did not.

There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause... The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Now, I'll go out on a limb and answer the question "yes." Why? Because I believe that The Economist poll in 2004 hit the nail on the head: this is a generational issue. That poll showed that 55% of those aged 18-29 support same-sex marriage, but only 21% of those over 65 do.

In Conclusion...
I am not the first person to note that American politicians -- and voters -- exhibit a purient interest in the goings-on of other people's bedrooms. So long as that interest helps get politicians elected (or re-elected), sex (in all its manifestations) will remain a front-burner issue in election years.

There is a lot of heat but little substance here. Whereas serious issues like Iraq, the federal debt, business competitiveness ... must seem too cerebral to both politicians and press.

• Federal Defense of Marriage Act
• Status of Same-Sex Marriage in the 50 States
• How To Amend The Constitution
• Three Reasons To Pass A Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
• Four Reasons to Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment
• Same Sex Marriage FAQ
• What's the Point of Marriage, Gay or Straight?
• Benefits of Legalized Marriage
• Bush Radio Address
• A Global View of Gay Marriage

Technorati Profile
Technorati tags: Gay Marriage, Politics
gada.be tags: Gay Marriage, Politics

^{Category: Gay Marriage}