Politics
The Right to Marry
Alice is from a fictional time and place that is so analogous to here, now, that we have few differences from Alice. There is one significant difference however. Alice wants to marry Tasha. Two women wanting to get married is ludicrous, and is generally seen as a perversion by an astoundingly large group of people. Everyone has heard of ‘gay people’. It doesn’t matter if they are gay or not, this personal preference has set off a public agenda comparable to the likes of abortion, censorship, racial profiling, and ultimately, religion. It once it seemed that at least there was one thing held sacred, one tradition, one fundamental principle of basic existence, that one could always believe in; now, we must think about our actions.
The constitution does not directly address the issue of marriage, and the Supreme Court has handed it off to the state courts. Only Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriage; Vermont and Connecticut offer civil unions; California, New Jersey, Maine and Washington D.C. grant benefits through domestic partnerships, and Hawaii has reciprocal beneficiary laws (special privileges allowing some of those of being married; inheritance rights, pension benefits, hospital visitation etc.). All of this is fairly ambiguous and confusing. But like Abraham Lincoln as an abolitionist desiring to give slaves rights, a delicate balance must be recognized between real life and the political drawing board. Democratic ideals such as the pursuit of happiness, justice, and diversity must be considered. I listed those select three ideals because they apply to marriage. What needs to be considered is not whether or not laws apply to individuals equally, that is one of the most basic rules laid down in the Bill of Rights. What needs to be considered is not the equality of the people, but rather the legitimacy of the law. Is happiness a product of the law? Are justice and diversity? Under current interpretations none of these are true nationwide.
What is marriage? This answer to this question has been taken for granted until recently, when a conflict erupted out of many cases of those in power laying down their opinion (with the occasional reference to a law). Today, the debate (although definitely philosophical as well) is mostly raged on the legal battlefield. In Baker v. Vermont (1999) three homosexual couples collectively sued for marriage licensing when they were denied it from their respective towns. They claimed that the denial of same-sex unions was a violation of the Vermont marriage statutes which was rejected due to the definition of marriage being gender specific. However, the majority of their argument was accepted, such as that the Vermont Constitution's Common Benefits Clause should grant them marriage protections because they were citizens of Vermont. In the end the court (Supreme Court) denied the original request. This case is an important landmark, though, because the court decided that some sort of domestic partnership system needed to be implemented. Today there are civil unions, which are nearly identical to marriages, except for that they are not recognized elsewhere. This leads to justice, but not happiness or diversity.
Another important case happened in Hawaii. Baehr v. Miike (1999) was similar to Baker v. Vermont because one of the arguments used was the equal protection clause of Hawaii. This clause applies to all citizens, and therefore the court accepted this argument. The defendant argued that “it is best for a child that it be raised in a single home by its parents, or at least by a married male and female”. This essentially means that homosexual couples are less capable of raising children. Many scientific studies disagree with this and it was proved it to be incorrect. The court found that (the) “Defendant presented insufficient evidence and failed to establish or prove any adverse consequences to the public fisc resulting from same-sex marriage.”, and Hawaii now has reciprocal beneficiary laws which again connects to justice, but happiness or equality.
I got a firsthand experience from the anti-gay marriage side of the issue at a panel at my school. Kevin Blier of the Center For Cultural Renewal openly addressed the issue despite his position of minority. If anything, he wanted us to “leave the room as critical thinkers”, educating us about the definitions of words such as bigot, marriage, and principle in his comparatively lengthy introduction. A relatively significant idea that Kevin addressed was the definition of marriage which he believes to be a “constant” in human life. This is one of the most direct conflicts which completely denounces gay and lesbian marriage as by definition a contradiction. Kevin also addressed the issue of procreation and of child rearing; he said gay and lesbian couples are not good parents. However, many studies show this to be incorrect[citation needed] Kevin thinks of himself as anti-gay, like 68% of the U.S.
I also heard the pro-gay marriage side in the panel. The panelists Beth Robinson and Tom Little endorsed gay marriage. They were less assertive than Kevin (perhaps because they didn’t want to be seen as insensitive liberals), but when they spoke up, what they had to say was noteworthy. Beth Robinson compared the prevention of marriage today with slaves, who were not allowed to marry because they were considered to be property. The similarity is alarming. Tom Little also noted that Webster’s has changed before. This is an interesting note, as the definitions are made by people, in places, and at times (which affects the interpretation of the meaning of a word).
The Right to Marry is a very controversial right. Many groups disagree with the concept, others clearly do not. Both think they are right, so someone is going to end up being wrong. After seeing both sides of the case, though, it is clear that the pro-marriage side has come out on top. In most arguments relative to the constitution theirs are more solid. It is hard to ignore this subject especially because democratic ideals (justice, happiness, equality) inadvertently put one on a moral high ground. These, then, are rights, and should be made federal law. So in conclusion, the fictional “Alice” should be allowed to marry whoever she wants to. The government should protect the right to marry because it is unconstitutional to not do so.
http://www.bidstrup.com/parenbib.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage/
http://starbulletin.com/96/12/03/news/ssruling.txt
Panel
- <<
- <
- >
- >>
Note: The problem here with your html was your use of slanted double quotes in your links. IE: ”. I'm going to adapt some code to strip them out of link tags... since they don't work even in normal html.
-neoeno
(Obviously) I agree.
Unfortunately the US constitution doesn't apply in the UK (my country). We have to rely on good old fashioned ethics here. Well, actually no, we have to rely on democracy. But a special kind, the louder their voice the more votes they get.
Civil partnerships is the UK's policy. To be perfectly honest it doesn't hurt me personally that much. I aspire to a relationship with the kind of length and involvement as marriage, but I don't feel the whole vows thing is necessary for me. I would want the rights though.
I hope I explained that properly ^_^;
But, I would like equality. I want gay marriage to be possible, even if I don't want it myself.
man, this is something i do not understand.
human rights.
this indicates some manner of higher power dictating what is and what is not a right. otherwise it's just arbitrary rules that we decide or don't decide to live by.
but, generally, people who believe in higher powers don't believe that gay people have the right to marry.
i am failing to make my point, but oh well.
i guess i am just trying to say that, in my opinion, if one disregards any manner of outside governing force that is more then human, then one has to accept that all laws are entirely baseless, just hairless monkeys putting on suits and pretending they're civilized.
or whatever.
it's late.
night.