Jump to navigation
Constitutional Fire
R. Alex Whitlock
As a Republican surrounded by liberals and Democrats, I've gotten to hear a lot about the gay marriage issue the last few days. Most of my friends are aware that this is an issue that I don't particularly agree with Republicans on and so it's used to suggest that perhaps I am really not the Republican that I think I am because President Bush is going out and saying something - loudly and frequently - that I vehemently disagree with. The idea of changing the constitution to specifically ban gays from getting marriage is outrageous to them and, they say, ought to be outrageous to me.
Except that it isn't.
I haven't changed my view on the issue. I still believe that gays should be allowed to marry. But it to referrendum and I will vote for it. I will campaign for it. But while I believe in gay marriage, I believe in democracy more. While I disagree with Republicans on this issue, I agree with them on tangental issues that make me completely uncomfortable with the tactic used by the pro-gay marriage folks (whose ends, less we forget, I do agree with) to ram their issue through the will of a reluctant public.
So while I don't agree with what they're doing, I completely understand where they're coming from.
Right now the public is not on board with gay marriage. If it were the attempts to wrap the gay issue into the non-existent privacy clause and the gay marriage issue into something that's implied in amendments dealing with racial minorities would not be necessary. I firmly believe that in another ten years the public will be on board and it won't be necessary. But right now it's unpopular and those on my side of the issue don't seem to care what the public wants. I believe that this will result in long-term backlash and will do the gay marriage cause a lot of harm. I'd not like to see that happen.
Which brings me to attempts by conservatives to write marriage into the constitution. It's not outrageous - it's exactly what liberals are trying to do without the extra effort of actually getting it into the constitution. If one is against gays being allowed to marry and they're told that the constitution says it's okay, what other recourse is there than to change the document in question? There is none and their response is completely logical.
It is liberals and not conservatives that are making marriage a constitutional issue. As of right now, marriage is legislative. If Alabama wants to make it so that twelve year olds can get married without parental consent and in New Hampshire someone has to be eighteen, that's unfair but constitutional because that's what their respective legislatures agreed on. If New Hampshire wants to expand marriage to homosexuals, then it can do so they same way that they could make it open to sixteen year olds. Or, for that matter, to allow people to have more than one spouse. They chose not to do that and as such I can't muster a whole lot of outrage that Republicans are fighting constitutional fire with fire.
Ultimately, I believe the marriage amendment will fail. I don't believe that there is nearly enough support in blue states to meet the required 3/4 legislatures to get it through. I also believe that Bush knows this and is straddling the issue for largely political reasons. Before one asks what that says about Bush, they ought to note that Kerry's response is even more political. Does anyone truly believe that Kerry does not believe that gays ought to be allowed to marry? Yet he's taking the untenable civil unions stance. So what does that say about him? It says he's a politician. Just like Bush is.
Observations
Lessee if I can condense this down:
#1 - If courts decide Gay Marriage falls under an amendment, essentially they are saying "it's in the constitution" and therefore anti-Gay-Marriage (not gonna say "Republican" here since the issue is back and forth in both parties) persons are justified in saying "but it shouldn't be" and going for an amendment.
Agreed there.
#2 - In 10 years the public will be behind it.
This I can't agree with so much. Traction has been gained, mostly through incremental judicial decrees that were then left to sit again, but eventually there ARE lines that are just damaging to cross.
I think this is one of those lines. Gay Marriage comes in, and it DOES mean it's only a matter of time before some Muslim is screaming bloody murder about being allowed two official wives or else you're infringing his religious freedom.
It may be 20 years instead of 10, but I think on the whole homosexuality is becoming increasingly de-marginalized thanks to entertainment media and political discourse.
As far as polygamy goes, that doesn't have the same mainstreaming possibilities that homosexuality does. Those faiths that believe in polygamy (old-style Mormon and Muslim predominantly) tend to be insular in nature, so it's not likely to take hold over a public that is unlikely to ever be really familiar with them (as opposed to homosexuality, which more and more people are becoming familiar with).
If it does happen through the courts, though, then there *would* be a precedent. On the other hand, in the name of religious freedom one could argue that it's already in the constitution and, frankly, they actually have a better constitutional case in favor of it than do those of us in favor of gay marriages.
If it passes by will of a consenting public, however, I don't believe that it would bolster (or weaken, for that matter) the case for polygamy. The public tends to view them as distinct issues.
Time will tell, though.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
