Same-sex marriage
Yesterday, Massachusetts became the first US state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. More than a thousand couples have already received their licenses in this short period.
President Bush's reply was to renew his call to Congress to pass a discriminatory amendment to the U.S. Constitution denying marriage for same-sex couples. "The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges. All Americans have a right to be heard in this debate."
The fact that the president is supporting a constitutional amendment underlines how vehemently and passionately he and the Christian-right oppose same-sex marriage. Since the Bill of Rights (1791), the US constitution has only been amended 17 times (once to reverse a previous amendment - prohibition). It requires approval by a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and House and three-quarters of the states for ratification.
In the US system, it is not unusual for courts to spearhead societal changes. Major issues, such as civil rights to education (Brown v. Board of Education in 1954), rights to interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia in 1967), abortion rights (Row vs. Wade) have been decided in the courts. Nor is it unusual for states to preserve their sovereignty, under Federalism, and approve distinct progressive laws.
That's why even Bob Barr, who authored the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, in a Newsweek interview opposes the amendment. DOMA created a federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse". Marriage is defined as a "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife," and spouse is defined as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Same-sex marriages are not recognized by the federal government, or eligible for any of its benefits, such as Social Security. Under DOMA, individual states have the right to recognize same-sex marriages, but these will not be recognized by the federal government or states that decide accordingly.
According to Barr, this seemed sufficient back in 1996, because they never suspected local officials to take initiative on this issue. But some state judges and city mayors (such as New Paltz and San Francisco) did, and the issue came to the spotlight.
This is not a fringe phenomena (the numbers in just a few days speak for themselves): most polls show a nation divided, with a majority favoring same-sex marriages. It is not a whim: there are concrete legal rights that are denied same-sex couples that cannot marry, such as health benefits, social security, jointly hold property, inheritance, etc. And civil unions (granted in Vermont) do not cross state lines.
Bush will try to make this into an electoral issue (Kerry, from Massachusetts, opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes the amendment). Its part of his religious agenda. And if it garners attentions, it might very well steal focus from other less comfortable issues for him.
President Bush's reply was to renew his call to Congress to pass a discriminatory amendment to the U.S. Constitution denying marriage for same-sex couples. "The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges. All Americans have a right to be heard in this debate."
The fact that the president is supporting a constitutional amendment underlines how vehemently and passionately he and the Christian-right oppose same-sex marriage. Since the Bill of Rights (1791), the US constitution has only been amended 17 times (once to reverse a previous amendment - prohibition). It requires approval by a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and House and three-quarters of the states for ratification.
In the US system, it is not unusual for courts to spearhead societal changes. Major issues, such as civil rights to education (Brown v. Board of Education in 1954), rights to interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia in 1967), abortion rights (Row vs. Wade) have been decided in the courts. Nor is it unusual for states to preserve their sovereignty, under Federalism, and approve distinct progressive laws.
That's why even Bob Barr, who authored the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, in a Newsweek interview opposes the amendment. DOMA created a federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse". Marriage is defined as a "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife," and spouse is defined as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Same-sex marriages are not recognized by the federal government, or eligible for any of its benefits, such as Social Security. Under DOMA, individual states have the right to recognize same-sex marriages, but these will not be recognized by the federal government or states that decide accordingly.
According to Barr, this seemed sufficient back in 1996, because they never suspected local officials to take initiative on this issue. But some state judges and city mayors (such as New Paltz and San Francisco) did, and the issue came to the spotlight.
This is not a fringe phenomena (the numbers in just a few days speak for themselves): most polls show a nation divided, with a majority favoring same-sex marriages. It is not a whim: there are concrete legal rights that are denied same-sex couples that cannot marry, such as health benefits, social security, jointly hold property, inheritance, etc. And civil unions (granted in Vermont) do not cross state lines.
Bush will try to make this into an electoral issue (Kerry, from Massachusetts, opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes the amendment). Its part of his religious agenda. And if it garners attentions, it might very well steal focus from other less comfortable issues for him.
posted by André Levy @ 9:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home