National Marriage Equality Legislation Needed

Marriage equality for same-sex couples gained momentum recently as a federal district court ruled unconstitutional the anti-equality California Proposition 8 passed by voters in 2008, and the state legislatures of Washington and New Jersey, and the Maryland General Assembly, passed bills that would legalize marriage for same-sex couples. The Maryland bill now heads to a vote by the full Senate. Washington Governor Chris Gregoire (D.) signed the bill into law, and Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley (D.) praised the legislation and has committed to signing it once it reaches his desk. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R.), who has publicly opposed marriage equality, on the other hand, vetoed his state's bill while arguing that the citizens of New Jersey should vote on the issue, which he asserted "represents a profoundly significant societal change."

A number of politicians assert that the issue of marriage for same-sex couples must be left to the individual state legislatures or to the voters to decide, because this falls under the category of states' rights or "majority rule," and that the national government should not intrude by imposing its will on the states in this matter.

I argue most emphatically that marriage rights in general and, more specifically, legalization for same-sex couples indeed represent a federal issue, and that national legislation or a Supreme Court decision must enforce the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Since different-sex couples, upon reaching legal age, are accorded the rights and benefits of marriage, the current 30 states with state constitutional amendments legitimizing marriage only "between a man and a woman" effectively deprive same-sex couples of "equal protection of the laws."

So then, should the civil and human rights of minoritized peoples be placed up for a vote or left to the discretion of state legislatures? In other words, should the majority determine the rights of minorities?

Take the following cases for example:

• If the issue of prohibiting the practice of slavery had not been settled in Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation and later codified in the U.S. Constitution, and was instead left to the individual states or to a majority vote, I question whether the states would have uniformly voted on their own to outlaw the practice of slavery, and I indeed believe that the practice of legalized slavery would have continued long after the Civil War in some states.
• If the issue of school desegregation had not been settled in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education U.S. Supreme Court decision and later strengthen by the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, and was instead left to the individual states or to majority rule, I question whether the states would have uniformly relinquished the practice of de jure racial segregation, and I indeed believe that this practice would remain to this very day in some states.
• If the issue of forbidding individuals their constitutional right to privacy and, specifically, the right to contraceptives, had not been decided in 1965 in Griswold v. Connecticut by the U.S. Supreme Court and was instead left to the discretion of the individual states or to majority rule, I question whether the states or the people would have guaranteed these rights uniformly throughout the country.
• If the issue of prohibiting individuals from different races from engaging in sexual relations (miscegenation) had not been settled in 1967 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia and was instead left to the individual states, I question whether the states would have uniformly relinquished the practice of arresting and incarcerating people of different races found engaging in sexual relations, and I indeed believe that these arrests and incarcerations would remain to this very day in some states. The court declared the state of Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the so-called "Racial Integrity Act" of 1924, unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on adult consensual sexual activity and marriage throughout the U.S.
• If the issue of freedom of speech for grade-school students had not been decided in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District in 1969 by the U.S. Supreme Court, I question whether the states would have uniformly relinquished the practice of restricting or banning students their First Amendment rights, and I indeed believe that today, students would face severe consequences for expressing their constitutional rights.
• If the issues of providing for the reproductive freedoms of women to control their own bodies had not been decided in the 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision, and was instead left to the individual states, I question whether the states would have uniformly relinquished the practice of outlawing and arresting doctors for performing abortions, and I indeed believe the subterranean and dangerous practices of self-induced abortions and procedures performed by untrained amateurs would continue to jeopardize women's health and women's very lives today.
• If the issue of consensual adult sexuality, in particular for same-sex couples, had not be legalized in the Lawrence v. Texas 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case overturning Texas's so-called "sodomy law," and thus eliminating similar statutes in 13 other states throughout the United States, I indeed believe we would find many of these laws remaining to this very day, resulting in arrest and incarceration of anyone found in violation.

These questions once again remind me of the concept of "tyranny of the majority," articulated in the 1830s by Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political scientist and diplomat, who traveled across the United States for nine months between 1831 and 1832, conducting research for his epic work, Democracy in America. Though he favored U.S.-style democracy, he found its major limitation in its independent thought and independent beliefs. In a country that promoted the notion of "majority rule," this effectively silenced minorities. This is a crucial point because in a democracy, without specific guarantees of minority rights, there is a danger of domination or tyranny over others whose ideas, values, and social identities are not accepted by the majority.

The founders of this country provided a mechanism for the protection of minorities against the tyranny of the majority. The checks and balances between the three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial, and the authority of national legislation over the individual states, have been shown time and again (though not perfectly, of course, and not without major adjustments and reversal of policy along the way) to offer some form of protection for minority rights and benefits. If we leave these important issues of social justice and social inequality to majority rule and to state legislatures alone, then many of the evils that have plagued this country throughout its history would continue to this very day.

Returning to the issue of marriage for same-sex couples, state laws currently on the books, as well as any proposed national legislation, will not compel religious institutions to perform religious marriages if they are opposed, for they do and will continue to have an exemption. Religious institutions will continue to set their own standards for conducting marriage ceremonies as they always have, without fear of prosecution if they decide that marriage for same-sex couples falls outside their teachings.

The current state-by-state patchwork quilt of statutes not only serves to keep same-sex couples in marriage limbo and second-class citizenship status, and deprives us unfairly and inequitably of "equal protection of the laws," but it's also costly in terms of time and resources to all parties involved in political educational campaigns, litigation, and in the legislative process. Though I do not hold out much hope that the current Congress will do the right (correct) thing by passing national legislation, I believe that in the context of a massive grassroots efforts, either the next Congress or the Supreme Court with make marriage equality a reality.

 

Comments

[Ioan Lightoller]

12:44 AM on 02/23/2012

The next goal should be the repeal of DOMA and institution of a federal marriage equality statute. There are 1138 federal rights/protections automatically granted to straights who marry but that same-sex couples who marry are denied. Also, it is wrong that marriage equality is accepted in one state and not another. Straight marriage is accepted in all 50 states; only in the case of GLBT couples can states without marriage equality get away with not accepting a legal marriage from another state. This is unconstitutional under equal protection and full faith and credit. Interesting how this has come to a screaming halt in the case of GLBT people.

[troyrobertdavid]

02:20 PM on 02/22/2012

It does seem to me that the main argument against marriage equality stems from religious beliefs that it is wrong. If that is the only argument then there should be no argument at all because we are supposed to have a separation between church and state. When this is pointed out to those who oppose marriage equality the only thing they have left to say is, well it’s just wrong, like a grade school child. The government cannot freely give a certain freedom and acknowledgements to one group and deny another. What is wrong is when you look at two consenting adult couples and one couple is made up of one man and one woman and you say to them; yes you are consenting adults and you can choose each other as your next of kin and join in a legal manner that gives you rights, protections, and responsibilities under the law that will be recognized by the federal government, then look at the other couple that is either two men or two women and say; no you are not worthy, you do not have the right to choose each other as your next of kin and do not deserve the rights, protections, and responsibilities as the that other couple.

[CTMaloney]

06:21 AM on 02/22/2012

The only real Marriage Equality is when FATHER and MOTHER are considered equal in law and society. My state of Maryland has not passed a PRESUMTIVE EQUAL PARENTING bill because of objection by feminists who want advantage in divorces. I am a father who lost my children in 2 divorces because gender-bias in courts and acceptance of fabricated accusation-- and there is nothing more distressin in life. The children were brainwashed against me. Marriage inequality affects millions more parents and children than the same-gender get-together issue.
Same gender-couples can live together if they like, but this has nothing to do tiwht NATIONAL legislation. Marriage is a state subject., but if state laws are needed it is not for their "marriage" but for provisions in case of shared property.

[xenas mom]

03:12 PM on 02/22/2012

First, let me say that you sound terribly wounded by your experiences which must have been quite terrible for you and your children. However, the issue of parental rights in court is somewhat different in my mind than marriage rights of individuals.

In this country the federal government provides nearly 1200 privileges and rights to legally married opposite-sex couples, while prohibiting access to legally married same-sex couples. Indeed, we can even be prosecuted for attempting access. Don't believe me? Try filing a joint tax return with IRS as a legally married same-sex couple; you will be audited and you could be charged with tax fraud. Does that sound like equal rights and treatment under the law to you; because it stinks of discrimination to me.

Now, if the federal government would drain the marriage benefits trough so that all couples--same-sex and opposite-sex--were actually treated equally, this issue would not exist. Then your caveat about the states and "living together if they like" (obviously same-sex couples who are in committed relationships either with or without marriage do live together already presumably because they like doing so, just like our opposite-sex counterparts) would apply. However, under current circumstances, federal law discriminates against a couple hundred thousand legally married same-sex couples who are in this country at this time, and that number is growing.

[Contact1972]

08:41 PM on 02/21/2012

Marriage cannot just be a State issue but a Federal one. GLBT tax paying couples should not be barred from the 1138 Federal laws and protections that every other heterosexual couple receive.

[Arizona Jim]

07:43 PM on 02/21/2012

If same sex marriages are a fundamental right then miscegenation laws of former rebel States, who were required to conform their laws to the requirements of the 14A before being readmitted into the Union, should had been found objectionable to the Fourteenth Amendment by its framers. They were not. See:

http://www.federalistblog.us/2009/02/equal_protection_of_the_laws/

[David Moore]

11:45 PM on 02/21/2012

Right, however, consider that Jim Crow laws were in effect. Also consider that Plessey v. Ferguson is on point in denying African Americans the same opportunities as their white counterparts by instituting "separate but equal" policies. The white only drinking fountains, lunch counters, and bus seats were relegated to history as a result of the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education case. Furthermore, the laws you find objectionable regarding interracial marriages was resolved by SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia.