The Skinny
see also background & facts, pro & con, links
What's Up
In November 2003, a Massachusetts’ Supreme Court decision legitimizing gay marriages sparked a nationwide debate that had same-sex couples running to the altar and state governments scrambling to define who could and who could not get hitched. President Bush brought the debate to DC by endorsing a change to the Constitution that would outlaw same-sex marriages. So far there’s been more bark than bite to the debates, with the status of gay marriages little altered since '03 and there being a small likelihood Congress will pass a constitutional amendment anytime soon. (Attempts in the Senate got nowhere in '04, '05 or '06.) But the pandora’s box of same-sex marriages has been flung open and no doubt the debate will simmer for years.
What the Debate's About
What the debate is not about is whether same-sex couples can get married in a religious ceremony; that’s out of the states’ hands and no one’s really talking about it. It is about civic marriages and the rights and benefits states give a couple when they say “I do.”
The arguments for allowing gay marriage look at the things married couples get that unmarried couples don’t, such as Social Security benefits and hospital visitation rights, as well as the “expressive value” of being able to say “we’re married,” which has more to do with principle than goods you can grasp. Opponents point out that gay couples can reap the same benefits as married couples using other civil laws besides marriage, and that protecting the heterosexuality of marriage has both moral and societal perks.
Sifting through the material benefits of being married can be a messy matter. In 2004, the GAO (General Accounting Office) found 1,138 national laws where it mattered if you were married or not (each state also has laws of its own that benefit wedded couples). Bush and his supporters on this issue stress that they are not trying to stop gay couples from living together. They say private contracts - name changes, wills, health proxies and such - can give gay couples nearly all benefits that the law gives straight ones.
While some critics of gay marriage don’t seem to have an interest in denying benefits to gay couples, they are concerned with both the moral and societal harm they say would come with gay marriages. Here, the “evidence” on both sides is murky, each side pointing to studies that prove the positive or negative impact of letting gay couples form state-approved families. Gay couples also warn about the moral and societal harm of not permitting same-sex marriages, saying that to do so denies equality to gay citizens - both legally and symbolically.
Where Things Stand Now
With little chance the current Congress would move to ban same sex marriage on a nationwide basis, the gay marriage debate continues to be purely a state-level affair. That debate was reopened most recently when the California Supreme Court ruled in May '08 in favor of gay weddings - but other states continue to wrestle with the gay marriage question - through activist-brought lawsuits, renegade mayors and clerks wedding gay couples, and votes for marriage laws and constitutional amendments.
Updated May, 2008
Did we miss something, let some slant slip in, lose a link - or do you just have something to say? Drop a line below! In the spirit of open dialogue, cJ asks you keep it civil, keep it real and keep it focused on the message, not the messenger. See our policy page for more on what that all means.
Majority protecting the minority?
When has a minority ever been able to count on the majority (or the "haves" protecting the "have-nots") for protection of equal rights? Just because something may not be overwhelmingly popular, does not mean it is not a valid infraction against the freedoms of our constutution (for all). The heterosexual custodians of marriage have not exactly been saints in holding the institution in high regards ("Sanctity of marriage"....really???? Come on! Heterosexuals change marriage partners like they change their underwear... i.e. A LOT!)?. Let the gays have their chance too. This is not the 1950's, people! Wake up and let freedom ring. If you are frightened by the "moral" aspect of this, then you need to befriend a law abiding, tax-paying, child-rearing gay American. It is not so easy to deny an actual person that you respect and value who you witness everyday being an outstanding parent and citizen. That is what is really immoral.
Same-Sex Marriage
You ask, << Did we miss something? >> You might mention in your article on same-sex marriage that in every state where gay marriage has been on the ballot it has been defeated by huge margins. The closest margin was in Oregon, where gay marrige lost by 58-42 percent. In every other state, it has received less than 30 percent of the vote, and in some cases right around 20 percent. I think pointing out these facts would give an important perspective to the debate and would show that the advocates for gay marriage are in a distinct minority.
So you think the fact that
So you think the fact that these measures have been defeated easily in most cases is relevant here? Am I understanding that correctly? What do these defeats have to do with the validity of the for or against argument?
Post new comment