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.
On Wednesday, the Senate defeated the Marriage Protection Amendment on a procedural vote, 49 in favor to 48 against. Technically, the Senate didn’t even vote on the substance of the amendment, which would have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
On many levels, this effort offends me. First, I have never bought into the idea that I as a gay man am somehow a threat to a heterosexual marriage, or that my desire to secure a long and fulfilling life with Robert would somehow undermine the institution that so many others enjoy.
Secondly, the rush to “preserve” marriage is not a crisis in the true sense of the term – it only becomes a heated issue in the months leading up to a national election. Far from being a legitimate social issue, it is a rallying cry for a voter base that is necessary for the GOP to remain in political power. Unfortunately, people like Rob and I are cast as the enemy in this little political drama; the straw man to be burned in order to win votes. Knowing that the amendment would fail to get the required super-majority, the Republicans pressed on, knowing that it would excite the base. This tactic is particularly regrettable given the current condition of the President’s popularity rating. This sad political spectacle will repeat itself when the House votes on the amendment next week.
Third, a federal constitutional amendment that would set a national standard for marriage is offensive to the tradition of federalism that is so cherished in this country. For all the talk of protecting marriage from over-zealous judges in a state like Massachusetts, passage of a marriage amendment would force Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and California which have to varying degrees offered some marriage rights to same-sex couples to comply with the moral norms of a place like Alabama or Utah. Why not let federalism run its course? Those states that wish to enshrine marriage as a heterosexual institution should be free to do so; those that wish to offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples should also be free to do so.
America has a long standard of dealing with different legal standards for gambling, alcohol, prostitution, and other moral norms. Marriage need be no different. If the Republicans were intellectually-honest about this issue, the proposed constitutional amendment would simply protect a state from having to accept the validity the same-sex marriage license issued in another state. Instead, the party has marched out a patently offensive, divisive, and anti-federalist piece of legislation that would kill not only gay marriage but possibly civil unions as well (although Cardinal McCarrick seems to disagree - see above), masquerading as an effort to rein in an overzealous court.
Furthermore, the constitution is not the right venue for defining a legal institution like marriage. Political scientist James Q. Wilson wrote that
The rising demand that every personal preference become a constitutional right is a worrisome disease.
He’s right. The constitution is intended as a framework for how the federal government is to work, and what powers and rights are reserved to the states or to the people. But to make a corollary argument, the rising demand that every moral injunction become a constitutional prohibition is also a worrisome disease. Prohibition didn’t work in 1919, and it won’t work now.
For more on the conservative case against the Marriage Protection Amendment, follow this link.
image credit: camagazine.com
No comments:
Post a Comment