LET MASS. BE A TEST CASE FOR GAY UNIONS: Andrew Sullivan

...Please calm down. Will heterosexuals now stop marrying because gay people can? Will the birthrate plummet? Will the sky fall? Of course not. But, even so, we can find out. The beauty of federalism, after all, is that we can test an idea in one state before we try it in any others. In two years' time, the voters of Massachusetts will also be able to take stock and vote to reverse the change, if they so wish.

Some members of the religious right claim that the change in Massachusetts will make civil marriage for homosexual couples mandated across the country. But there is absolutely no truth to that claim. The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution does not apply to marriage licenses. Like licenses to practice law or medicine, they are not easily transferable across state lines--and have historically been barred if another state says they violate its public policy. That's how we came to have interracial marriage banned in many states while legal in others for decades. So far, 38 states have passed laws insisting that they will not recognize such civil marriages in Massachusetts. Then there's the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, which underlines this fact. By denying gay couples any federal benefits, while writing into federal law that Massachusetts' marriages need not be recognized elsewhere, DOMA has shut the door to any nationalization of civil marriage. So why on Earth do we need to go to the drastic step of passing an amendment to the Constitution?

The answer is that there is no need at all. ...

Moreover, the national view of homosexuality has changed drastically in the last decade or so, and we are now in a period of great flux and debate on the matter. Polls show that the younger generation supports equal marriage rights for gays by a heavy majority. By passing a constitutional amendment now, we will essentially be freezing our current unsettled opinion forever and robbing our children of a choice they have a right to make. It's always worth reiterating, as conservatives often have: The Constitution should be amended only in drastic circumstances and only for properly constitutional matters. The issue of gay marriage belongs in the realm of politics and law, not the Constitution.

Besides, the Constitution should be a text that unites us rather than divides us. Everyone knows this issue deeply divides people, sparks deep emotions and feelings on all sides. Settling such a matter by rewriting the document that our founders gave us is an insult to them and to all Americans. Amending it to write discrimination into the document that guarantees equality and freedom is equivalent to writing graffiti on a sacred monument. So let's leave Massachusetts alone. And let the political, civil and judicial process take its long, arduous but essential role in deciding this, state by state, in due course and due time. Right now, we have far more pressing matters to deal with.

more
posted by Eve at 9:14 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home