William Rusher: Let the states decide what "marriage" is

unitedfeatures.com ^ | 3/15/04 | William Rusher

[blitzgig]

It would help if the two sides in the debate over "gay marriage" could begin by conceding that each has a point. The gay supporters of the concept are not, in most cases, out to scupper the institution of marriage; on the contrary, all they ask is to be allowed to participate in it. And its opponents are not necessarily homophobes; many people, among them not a few homosexuals, believe that marriage, defined as the union of one man and one woman, is one of the indispensable building blocks of a stable social order, and that expanding the definition would seriously undermine the institution.

American society as a whole seems to be moving toward a broad-minded compromise, based on the proposition that two people of the same sex ought to be entitled to proclaim their unity in some official way (perhaps by recognizing "civil unions") that will afford them many of the rights now accorded only to married couples -- for example, in tax law. The real question is how to get there from here without changing more than is absolutely necessary.

The problem lies in the "Full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. Article IV, Section 1 declares that "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state ..." Since the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recently ruled that two men or two women may get "married" under the constitution of that state, any couple that does so would seem entitled to demand that their "marriage" be recognized in the other 49.

Congress, anticipating this problem several years ago, passed a Defense of Marriage Act declaring that no state would be required to recognize such a "marriage" contracted under the laws of another state. And there is a thin hope that this law may have the desired effect, since the federal Constitution's "Full faith and credit" clause goes on to declare that "Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." But any student of today's Supreme Court will concede that it is far more likely that a five-member majority, consisting of the four liberals and Sandra Day O'Wobbly, will simply declare the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

That likelihood is what drives the opponents of "gay marriage" to call for a constitutional amendment. Whether it takes the form President Bush has suggested ("defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife ... while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage"), or simply exempts new forms of "marriage" from the "Full faith and credit" clause, it would conclusively bar the courts from ordering that such marriages, contracted in Massachusetts or some other state, must be recognized elsewhere.

That would leave the whole issue of gay marriages where it manifestly belongs: in the hands of the individual states. The genius of our federal system is precisely that it permits different states to come to different conclusions on hotly disputed issues that don't require uniform national treatment. (Abortion would be another such issue, as it was for many years, if the Supreme Court had not rashly decided, in Roe v. Wade, to nationalize it.)

Let no one say that the question is too trivial to be addressed at the constitutional level. If such a profound issue as the very structure of society doesn't deserve such attention, then nothing does. Nor would a constitutional amendment "take away" any existing rights; on the contrary, the Bush proposal would actually encourage legal recognition of previously unrecognized forms of relationships.

Above all, the above-described compromise would avoid weakening the institution of marriage. Gay marriage is not the only, or even the worst, threat to it. Marriage has been under attack ever since the sexual revolution of the 1960s. No-fault divorce and out-of-wedlock births have soared, with devastating effects. If Massachusetts thinks gay marriage will help rather than hurt, so be it. But if other states disagree, they should have that right.

[international american]

Now what do we do?? Mr. Rusher.

[Sacajaweau]

Marriage is what it is. Let the states decide what they are going to do with these homosexuals who wish to be just like regular married people. Obviously, the big thing is they are of the same sex. It's simply not the same no matter how you twist it.

[international american]

"Let the states decide what they are going to do with these homosexuals "

What happens when San Franciscans move to South Bend, Indiana??

[Brilliant]

There is not going to be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. What they should do is try to pass a constitutional amendment that would allow each state to decide whether to recognize them. Kerry says that's the law now anyway, so it would be difficult for him to oppose it, even though it's not the current law.

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

[jwalsh07]

Marraige is a national issue, the neo-federalists and conservatives who pretend otherwise are deluding themselves and others.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Rusher is either:

1. Cruelly misinformed, and therefore shouldn't be a journalist.

2. Lying, and " " " ".

Anyone who has done the slightest bit of research into "gay" marriage knows full well that homosexual leaders want marriage for politcal reasons, not because they are interested in mimicking normal people.

Just in case Mr. Rusher reads this thread, here is what homosexual spokespeople themselves state about "gay" marriage:


From LA Times of March 12: 2004...
"Divided over gay marriage" by Roy Rivenburg

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to "push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society." ... [snip]

An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."

"Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit." [Also listed as a demand was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]