Tag: Same Sex Marriage

At the core of the two same-sex marriage cases argued this week before the Supreme Court is the fundamental question of whether the Constitution requires the state and federal governments to treat same-sex marriage exactly the same as traditional, opposite-sex marriage for all purposes for all time, or whether it is permissible to draw reasoned distinctions between the two, ranging from California’s simple reservation of the term “marriage” to opposite-sex couples to the federal government’s comprehensive reservation of all federal benefits of marriage (including joint tax filings, Social Security benefits and immigration status) to opposite-sex couples. I respectfully submit that this should not be a difficult question. Common human experience, basic biology, and existing social science all confirm that there are significant differences between SSM and traditional marriage. Whether or not you support SSM as a political and policy matter, there should be no doubt as a legal matter that the state has the same legitimate right that it has always possessed to draw distinctions between the two in the many, many areas of law that touch on marriage and family life.
I have not, over the years, spent much time or energy on the battle over political recognition of same-sex marriage; while I don’t think it’s a wise idea, it is also not likely to have enormous consequences, for reasons I discuss below. Democracy works, however imperfectly: things done legislatively can be modified or undone the same way, can be adapted in different ways to the needs of different jurisdictions, and can be passed or amended with protections for conscientious dissent. Personally, for two decades, I’ve supported the “live and let live” option of civil unions, the moderate solution that allows people the freedom to choose whatever partner they want and make a life together, with the basic rights of contract, inheritance, hospital visitation and the like. Call it a marriage if you want, but without the official endorsement and coercive power of the state behind the name.

But the democratic process is one thing. A judicial determination that the Constitution prohibits recognition of any distinctions between the two institutions for all time would have much more far-reaching effects on our laws – effects we may not even be able to anticipate or foresee until creative lawyers have gone off to the races with this freshly-minted legal doctrine. We have seen, over and over, how changes in law and policy produce unforeseen or unintended consequences in the family and society; the institution of marriage in particular has buckled badly under a long series of liberal social experiments over the past five decades. You’d think that by now we would at least have learned to stop using irrevocable court decisions to open Pandora’s Box.

It does the law no good to pretend things that are not so. Whatever the merits of SSM, it is not the same thing as marriage between a man and a woman, and the differences are neither irrational nor insignificant. Even if you support SSM, the only reasonable conclusion is that male-male or female-female marriage is not the same as male-female marriage. Let us count the most obvious ways.

Continue reading Same Sex Marriage Is Not the Same As Opposite Sex Marriage

Jesse Jackson and John Kerry sound awfully worried and defensive about the potential for the same-sex marriage issue to pry off African-American voters from the Democratic ticket:

“How many of you – someone from your family – married somebody of the same sex?” Mr. Jackson asked of the congregation of about 500. After nobody raised a hand, he asked, “Then how did that get in the middle of the agenda?”

“If your issues are cancer and Medicare and education and jobs and Social Security and decent housing, then how did someone else put their agenda in the front of the line?” he asked.

Following him a few minutes later, Mr. Kerry urged his audience to try to ignore diversions from the issues Mr. Jackson had mentioned.

“All they’re going to do is attack and attack and try and divert, and push some hot button that has nothing to do with the quality of your life on a daily basis,” the senator from Massachusetts said.

And, I’ve heard of demonizing your opponents, but I always thought that was in a figurative sense:

[Kerry] appeared at yesterday’s service with Mr. Jackson and Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas; Rep. Kendrick B. Meek of Florida; Mr. Meek’s mother, former Rep. Carrie Meek; and the Rev. Al Sharpton, who campaigned against Mr. Kerry for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“He’s fighting against liars and demons,” Mrs. Meek said.

The article does not mention if Kerry disagreed with the characterization of Republicans as “demons.” Then there’s the usual hyperbole:

Mr. Kerry told the congregation he is taking steps to allay the grievance of many Florida blacks that their votes were not counted in 2000.

“Never again will a million African-Americans be denied their right to exercise their vote in the United States of America,” he said.

Why only a million? Why not a billion, or a trillion, if you’re going to make up numbers out of thin air?

Oh, and don’t forget all the hyperventilating we get from the Left over the idea that “Bush actually believes that God told him to become president.” (But it’s OK for a writer to knock that if “[s]ome of my best friends believe in God . . . “). Now, Kerry would never nod along at a suggestion like that, would he?

Pastor Gaston E. Smith at the Baptist church was trying to send a message to his congregation.

“For every Goliath, God has a David,” he said. “For every Calvary’s cross, God has a Christ Jesus. To bring our country out of despair, discouragement, despondency and disgust, God has a John Kerry.”

Mr. Kerry mostly sat stolidly during the 20-minute sermon, nodding slightly. Mr. Smith said God can work His will through the election. “If he did it for Clinton, he can do it for you,” he said.

But don’t hold your breath waiting for the denunciations of this from Slate and its ilk.