On Gay Marriage
Gay marriage has become one of the most divisive political issues of the day. The recent ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court has taken what was previously a little discussed issue, and made it arguably the biggest issue of the 2004 elections, save for Iraq and the economy. Both President Bush and Senator John Kerry oppose gay marriage; however, President Bush has endorsed an amendment to the constitution defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, while Kerry opposes any such amendment. Kerry has also expressed support for civil unions (legal recognition for gay partnerships, but not marriage).
It is an issue on which people disagree bitterly, one that incorporates religion, charges of bigotry, deeply held convictions by both sides of the issue. Given these factors, and the manner by which it became legal (via a court order), it is entirely possible that gay marriage could become as divisive an issue as abortion.
Those who support gay marriage argue that marriage is a basic human right for everyone, a right that should not be denied to an individual because of his or her sexual orientation. Many of them compare the movement towards gay marriage as simply another step in the Civil Rights movement. They believe strongly in the separation of church and state, and believe that denying marriage to gays amounts to "legislating morality," imposing religious views upon others. They argue that the supporters of the proposed amendment are motivated by homophobia and bigotry, not by any desire to protect the sanctity of marriage.
Supporters of gay marriage argue that it is simply no one else's business if they want to marry someone of the same sex. Barney Frank (D-Mass), the only openly gay congressman, provides this argument, "When I go home from today's work and I choose because of my nature to associate with another man, how is that a problem for you? How does that hurt you?"
Opponents of gay marriage range from conservative Christians like James Dobson and Chuck Colson, who are opposed on religious and moral grounds, to more secular conservatives like Thomas Sowell, who is opposed on legal grounds. Sowell offers this articulate view on gay marriage, "Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that what happens between 'consenting adults' in private is none of the government's business. But now gay activists are taking the opposite view, that it is government's business -- and that government has an obligation to give its approval."
Supporters of gay marriage are mostly political liberals and libertarians, though there are some on the right who support it, such as the Log Cabin Republicans (a gay Republican group). These supporters remain in the minority, as a recent CBS poll found. According to this poll, 62% of Americans oppose gay marriage, versus 30% who support it, and the number of opponents seems to be growing. Still, only a slight majority (51%) favor a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage. Supporters of gay marriage find some consolation in this number.
According to the same poll, opposition to gay marriage is strongest among Republicans, of whom 71% oppose gay marriage (versus 27% who support it). Majorities of Democrats, Independents, and moderates are also opposed. African-Americans are also opposed; a majority said they would not support a candidate who did not share their view. On the other hand, 62% of liberals are pro-gay marriage, and those under 30 are more likely to support it than older Americans (though a majority of them are still opposed).
With these numbers, it is no secret why President Bush would like to make gay marriage an issue in the November elections. It puts John Kerry in a tight spot: If he announces he opposes gay marriage, he runs the risk of alienating his liberal base. If he supports it, he could alienate blacks, independents, and moderates, all groups he must win in order to become President. Kerry has taken a "compromise" position: he says he opposes gay marriage, but he also opposes Bush?s proposed constitutional amendment.
My own stance on the issue is, ironically, similar to John Kerry's. While I do not support gay marriage, I do support civil unions. And I oppose a constitutional amendment codifying marriage (though, if the U.S. Supreme Court followed suit with the Massachusetts Supreme Court, I would probably reconsider this stance).
Dictionary.com defines marriage as, "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." Therefore, "gay marriage" is impossible. You may own a Pinto. You may call it a Lexus. Unfortunately, merely calling it a Lexus does not make it a Lexus. Centuries of precedent have established marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Nothing can be done to change this. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect people to accept this simple fact.
On the other hand, I do not believe it unreasonable for Americans to accept that what happens behind closed doors between consenting adults to be none of the business of the government, so long as no one else is harmed. Homosexuality has existed for centuries, and will continue to exist. In this respect, whether or not it is biological or a choice is irrelevant. We all know that homosexuals can exist in committed relationships for years. For these reasons, I do not find a strong enough reason to oppose civil unions.
The government, however, should not force insurance companies to bestow on homosexuals the same recognition as a married heterosexual couple. If the companies wish to recognize it as marriage, they should have every right to do so. But they should be coerced. The reason for this is simple. As Dr. Walter E. Williams pointed out in his December 31, 2003 column, "According to a study titled, 'The Longevity of Homosexuals,' in the Omega Journal of Death and Dying in 1994, the median age of death from AIDS is 37 and death from other causes 42. In another study, 'Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life?' in Psychological Reports in 1998, the average life expectancy of homosexuals is 20 to 30 years less than heterosexuals." Obviously, forcing the companies not to "discriminate" would lead to everyone being forced to pay higher premiums.
A Constitutional Amendment seems to me to be an overreaction. When we read the words of the Founders, it is obvious that they designed the Constitution with the goal of limiting the power of government, not to enshrine restrictions on individuals. This was attempted before with the Eighteenth Amendment, and resulted in complete failure. While the proposed marriage amendment obviously would differ from Prohibition, marriage is a right best left to individual states. Besides, an amendment defining marriage would look pretty silly in the Constitution. If a state wishes to recognize gay marriage (by consent of the governed, not a court ruling), then they should be allowed to do so in a Federalist system. Similarly, if a state wishes to ban gay marriage, they should likewise be allowed to do so (again, by consent of the governed).
We should all think long and hard about the issue of gay marriage, and constantly challenge our beliefs and opinions. Given its moral and religious overtones, this is an issue that could rival abortion as the most divisive social issue of our day. If you get sick of hearing about it, too bad. This is an issue that is going to be with us for some time to come.
- John Brown is a senior in political science and history at the University of Tennessee @ Knoxville. Contact him at johnnyb325@aol.com, or visit www.johnnorrisbrown.com. This article was originally written in April, 2004.