Previously garnered momentum for the same-sex marriage movement has diminished as the New York State Senate rejected a bill to legalize gay marriage 38-24. In line with voter repeals of legalization of same-sex marriage such as a peoples' veto in Maine and the earlier Proposition 8 amendment of the California constitution, legislators pronounced that a popular consensus has developed in opposition to same-sex marriage and this justifies voting against the bill. Sadly, there may indeed exist a substantial opposition amongst the New York constituency, but recent polls there have shown leanings in support of same-sex marriage. Regardless of public whim, marriage shouldn't be treated as a privilege endowed by a legally biased majority of voters. It should be offered as a civil liberty. Even though the Supreme Courts of California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut have at some point deemed bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, opposers of same-sex marriage reiterate values based arguments neglecting the fair interpretation of law. Values shouldn't define law, and the right to marry shouldn't be left to the interpretation of cultural tradition.
Currently nineteen states have bans on any recognition of same-sex unions. This sets a concrete limit on the progress that can be made in spreading same-sex marriage through state legislation. Yes, the legalization of same-sex marriage in Iowa was an encouraging move forward, particularly given Iowa's stereotypically conservative image, but because of the impossible legal and political situation that exists even in moderate states like Nevada and Pennsylvania, a more farsighted strategy for the same-sex movement is to pursue legalization at the federal level. Currently, the largest federal impediment to same-sex marriage is the Defense of Marriage Act, a divisive amendment that President Obama had promised to repeal during his presidential campaign. Repealing this act also presents daunting political obstacles such as a risk of being deferred in favor of other national issues, but having a vocal ally in the Executive Branch could allow it to someday see review in the Supreme Court. This is necessary to transform the question of same-sex marriage into one of legal entitlement.
Because of the huge differences between states regarding their constitutions and local politics, the national record on same-sex marriage has been volatile, but a predictable strategy has arisen amongst the opposition in appealing to populist notions of tradition. In the New York State Senate bill Senator Ruben Diaz Sr. tried to appeal to peoples' religious biases in saying, “Not only the evangelicals, not only the Jews, not the Muslims, not only the Catholics, but also the people oppose it.” Herein lies the fallacy with addressing this issue through popular vote. The question of same-sex marriage loses its appeal as a civil rights issue when it's framed as a threat to the idea marriage. The opposition has successfully labeled itself “defenders of marriage” and continues to exploit peoples bias toward tradition to deflect the legal question. Voters and politicians need to think past cultural norms and empathize with individuals. This loyalty to tradition hurts individual homosexuals much more than their choice to marry prevents the personal practice of tradition.
New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill
Same-sex marriage in the United States
Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States
Public Opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States
Slippery Slope
A thoughtful article, but the crux of the argument, which I take to be "Voters and politicians need to think past cultural norms and empathize with individuals" opens up a whole new can of worms. Essentially, this sentiment allows for any thing that could be argued as a "cultural construct" has no bearing on the legal/moral system. From there every individual's desires become the basis of legality, leading to a breakdown of our system of law. For example, our culture has a bias against physical abuse of children but in other cultures it is an acceptable way to raise a child. Since that's such a "cultural value," should all of our child abuse laws be taken off the books? I'm not equating gay marriage to child abuse - I'm just pointing out that asserting "cultural norms" are obstructions to proper individual rights has a lot of serious consequences. I'm against gay marriage for a bunch of reasons, and one of them isn't because it's "untraditional."
Also, it's not individual rights being limited here - it's an institutional right. Every individual American, whether gay or straight, has the same rights. The difference comes when individuals pair up and want to take part in an institution.
Institutional rights?
Screwdriver
Who decides what constitutes what is an institution and who gets to take part in them? Is the church a constitution? If so, they have a right to exist and practice, but the government certainly doesn't have a responsibility to protect their moral agenda in legislatures.
Indeed, the statement "Voters and politicians need to think past cultural norms and empathize with individuals" opens up a whole new can of worms, but that is not entirely the issue I'm discussing here. There are those politicians and advocates that base their argument entirely in religion and tradition, and that's who this criticism is directed for. What I'm criticizing is a neglect of civil rights. "Values shouldn't define law" is to say that values shouldn't entirely decide law, not that they don't have some bearing on them.
You are welcome to present all of your other arguments in opposition to gay marriage, but take this article as a challenge to address these civil rights issues at hand. Many politicians don't have the courage to do so.
"Every individual American, whether gay or straight, has the same rights."
An entirely too general and false statement. Gay couples do not have the right to marry. Or if you want to be pickier about your wording, men do not have the right to marry other men as women have the right to do so, and women do not have the right to marry other women as men have the right to. There are thousands of gay couples in the United States that have been waiting to make their partnerships recognized and receive the same benefits as opposite-sex couples. This sort of blanket statement is exactly the sort of deferral of the issue of individual rights that I'm talking about.
So what do we do?
So how and when will gay marriage be legalized in the US?
Yell
Probably wait until health-reform is passed, then start screaming at Obama from the sideline. He needs to feel that he is at risk of losing some of his base to act on progressive issues. Democratic presidents have always pandered too much to the right.
Gay Civil Liberties Victim of Tradition
This is a good question that steve madden shoes I think can also be asked about straight allies on LGBT rights, white allies on racial justice issues, and anyone else who does activism dealing with identifiable groups with which s/he does not identify. For my part, I don't have to deal with much male-ally infighting because marc jacobs shoes I live in Mississippi, where the feminist/pro-feminist movement isn't really large enough to accommodate separate groups for allied men; we're mainstreamed into coeducational, women-led organizations like NOW, Planned Parenthood, the Mississippi Reproductive Justice Coalition, et. al. and work liz claiborne shoes with women in these groups. There are some women-only groups, such as Sisters Increasing Positive Progression (SIPPI), but I've never seen a male ally group.
Very nice and useful
Very nice and useful post.642-812 questions The link that you published is a big help to me.70-640 questions It will be an additional resources for me.642-901 questions I am self studying web designing, so all this kind of resources is very important.70-290 questions Thank you
Post new comment