Friendly fire: Gay marriage

Sean:

It's comical that the loudest supporters of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act are the same people who demand that the federal government get out of their hair. If there is anything that proves mainstream Republicans are not for small government, it's this. If it's not the government's place to require healthcare, impose taxation or ensure environmental regulations, then why is it acceptable for the government to intervene in the bedroom and tell you what marriage is?

If you support states' rights, then the issue is equally relevant. According to Sec. 1 Article 4 of the Constitution, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." DOMA prevents Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut and most recently New York from attaining this right since it allows other states to deem same sex marriage licenses made in these states as null and void. Can such hypocrisy be justified?

Ethan:

Such hypocrisy isn't justifiable or even constitutional. The Defense of Marriage Act as written and passed in 1996 is unconstitutional on many grounds, the first of which you already mentioned, where it contravenes Section 1 of Article 4 of the United States Constitution. More specifically, it violates the 1st Amendment's protection of religious institutions from government interference and the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equality before the law for all persons. Considering the legal precedence of these sections of the Constitution, it is my position that the current Defense of Marriage Act should be repealed and replaced with a new law that 1) defines marriage as a purely religious institution free from interference by government at any level, 2) requests that states find another means of guaranteeing equality for all couples under the law and 3) reaffirms the text of Article 4, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, therefore ensuring the respect of the laws of every state

Sean:

I'm glad to see that all conservatives are not uniform on this issue. The sad irony is that Republicans are violating their greatest constitutional achievement, the 14th Amendment. I agree that the 14th Amendment must be imposed on all levels of government. This is why the state of Florida should repeal Amendment 2, passed in 2008, which banned any form of civil union other than traditional marriage. This measure not only hurt same sex couples but also senior citizens who benefited from various union titles without being "married."

Despite my agnostic affiliation, I agree that marriage is a religious institution. This is precisely why the government should not remain in the position of an objective intermediary in this issue. Instead, these matters should be left in the hands of individual churches, temples and mosques. Same sex couples could then find gay friendly religious institutions in nearly every locale. If a same sex couple desires to bond their union in a church hostile toward homosexuality, such as the Mormon or Roman Catholic Church, then the attainment of that right should be fought in the pew, not the courthouse. It should be the government's job to hand over the necessary paperwork, not define marriage.

Ethan:

Speaking of courthouses, I will state here my opposition to this issue being resolved by courts. Judicial activism has no constitutional basis. In my opinion, it is drastically unconstitutional that in six of the eleven states, which have legalized same-sex unions, the decision came from a courthouse and not the legislature. Courts exist to arbitrate disputes between individuals and to interpret the constitutionality of current laws. I do not know of any state constitution that formally recognizes the power of the court system to legislate; the power to use a constitutional ruling as a means of enumerating a new right and declaring recognition of that right as binding law. Per the 9th Amendment to the United States Constitution, all rights not specifically laid forth or denied by the Constitution are held by the citizenry. Logically that makes referendums and legislation by elected representatives the only constitutional avenues for the enumeration of the specific rights of couples as nothing is said on this topic within the United States Constitution.

Sean:

I agree that courts must stick to their role as interpreters of the law, not legislators of law. In this sense I think conservative and liberal judges are both guilty of going beyond their roles by partaking in judicial activism. However, there are times of societal angst, especially in the area of civil rights, where courts are prompted to act upon sluggish legislative inaction. I also question the success of referendums in achieving equal rights for same sex couples under the 14th Amendment. Too often we have seen examples such as Prop 8 in California and Amendment 2 in Florida which have provoked religious fervor for family sanctity over civil rights. This only promotes a tyranny of the majority that I cannot constitutionally support. However I do agree that it is the role of elected officials to decide the rights and benefits of being a married couple. But this does not mean that elected officials can decide who is and who isn't a married couple.

Ethan:

As for the religious conservatives around the country who have indeed caused constitutional dilemmas through referendums and their elected officials, I can only speak for the Christians among them. Within the framework of Christ's teaching, the political position that socially conservative Christians have taken is blatantly incorrect. At the beginning of the 8th chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus is challenged by the Pharisees on what should be done about an adulteress. Jesus's response was to let anyone without sin be the first to enact punishment. When applied to politics today, these verses (John 8:3-8) indicate that no human being is allowed to pass judgment on others for their sins. Therefore the persistent attempts of the Christian right to prevent gay marriage are biblically unfounded. Unfortunately, they continue to use religious arguments instead of moving on to more effective ones that come from the academic side of the sociology discipline. It is my greatest regret that more of my Christian brethren have not realized the truth of Jesus's teachings and applied it to their political beliefs.