The Constitutionality of Marriage
“The Marriage Debate: Let Democracy Work…” this was the selected title for the arguments against same-sex marriage. This is an important switch within the last few months as the public opinion has shifted to over 58% of Americans supporting marriage equality with a stunning 80% of people under thirty in support. Their arguments have shifted to a softer approach of coming at this issue because the majority audience is no longer against what they are fighting for. Accepting this fact, the opposition has now turned to letting the courts ignore both of these cases and let the individual states decide for themselves, though if the Supreme Court decided to defer the decision, it could have a negative effect on the movement. The first line quotes President Obama with his acknowledgment that “people of goodwill” are on both sides of this debate; this is a clear appeal to the other side, using the President who is both a democrat and in support of equal rights, to their advantage. Mr. Nimocks presses that because both sides are filled with good people who are simply fighting for what they believe, they “deserve close attention” from the American public. Yet the stakes on which he places this examination, “anyone who values the American system of government”, has the look of a blatant scare tactic translating to the destruction of the entire government if the wrong decision is made. He describes the past years as a successful experiment of how the system has worked just fine with “dozens of statewide referendums” addressing the issue have taken place and that most states have chosen to “protect traditional marriage” while a small group have “taken a different course”. This presents the image of a broad, united front on an extremely complex issue where all the states have spent long hours debating and, in the end, deciding to defend the institution of marriage. It is the process of debate that is the most stressed in this piece. Described by Mr. Nimocks as the “most American of activities”, the arguments within each state is placed as a savior to the American government and our society as a whole with “churches, schools, private associations, universities and numerous advocacy organizations” included within the sphere of solving the issue through debate. All of this built up is then dramatically tossed aside as he questions if the public is ready to have their voice stolen from them by a “single judicial declaration”. The argument is molded into an appeal to move slower and think about this situation more clearly before what he calls a “radical change to a fundamental human institution” infects our society. These buzz words like radical, human and society place the defenders of traditional marriage in the light of what is natural and good, normal and right while it paints the other as radical and different, unnatural and wrong. The encouragement and idea of debate is the great savior of our society as it is “one of the great things about America” and that with this freedom to debate over the law. He hopes that by diverting the decision to the states, there will be a patchwork of victories that will force the government to respect the decision of the states rather than enact a broad civil rights law. The obvious problem with this point is that the will of the people is for marriage equality with the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll showing 58% in favor of equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians. Mr. Nimocks might have been aware of this issue as he brought back past situations where those who were expected to support marriage equality laws instead voted against them as California did with Proposition 8 and President Clinton did with the defense Against Marriage Act. Wrapping up his reasoning, Mr. Nimocks plays down the past history of same sex marriage and describes it as a debate that is just beginning. Playing down the role of the Supreme Court as a governing body with the ability to make “marriage into a comprehensive, nationwide policy”. All the while playing up the threat to the rights of states and voters, that with this court decision the voice of all who would make thoughtful and reasonable decisions would become irrelevant in a totalitarian government ruled by the Supreme Court. He ends his argument with a request to “let democracy work” and claims that it will if states are left to their own devices.
Directly under the first piece is the second piece by Theodore B. Olsen and David Boies entitled “…Gays Deserve Equal Rights”. What is important about this title is that it defines what the debate is about: civil rights. “Four years ago” it starts, the two lawyers “joined forces” to challenge Proposition 8 which “eliminated the right” for gays to get married. There again is the statement that this is a right that is being infringed upon by a talkative minority of the country, their right to the “most important relation in life”. Mr. Olsen and Mr. Boies then explain and smooth the exaggerated differences of their relationships with the wives of the two couples whom they represent. Describing how their similarities brings home a strong point that although they have all this in common, the state of California is denying them their right for the sole reason of being gay. Putting into words the less tangible, unconscious messages that these law are sending as saying that “such relationships are unworthy of the respect, dignity and status that society accords to marriages” and that some people are not worth the same rights as others. I believe this hammers home the point of it being a rights issue and not an issue that should be taken into the sphere of religious beliefs.
Next, the pair address a bullet in the right wing arsenal that the Supreme Court will create some kind of “culture war” similar to the Roe vs. Wade decision. The fear is quickly dispelled by a logical and legally flavored answer: “Roe was perceived as creating a new constitutional right out of whole cloth, the Supreme Court has recognized at least 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right”. This is an important point to address when reading and understanding the two sides on this issue. The basic facts are that the law and the Constitution are on one side and not the other. Mentioned five times in this article are matters of the law siding with their stance, three of those are about the Constitution. The other article present no legal precedent other than the ones in peril of being overturned. Leaving the states open to debate the rights of its citizens suggests, “states should remain free to discriminate… for as long as they wish”. Overall, it is up to the federal government and the Supreme Court to step in when they see that a piece of the public is moving in one direction that is based on fear and misunderstanding, versus another that is the larger and morally right of the two. They remind us of the old style of doing things in America, separate bathrooms and drinking fountains. Directly from the Supreme Court ruling, they said that separate “facilities are inherently unequal”, this ruling includes institutions that are in the public domain and run by ruling bodies subject to the federal government. Finally, the most easily understood argument in support of equal rights for all is the American promise of security towards the “pursuit of happiness”. Marriage has changed throughout the years. Many years ago it was used as a political move to gain land, unite countries, solidify alliances and diversify gene pools. This is no longer the function of marriage in the American way of life. The main reason why people get married in this country is because they are in love and wish to spend the rest of their lives with their complement. If marriage is about love and happiness is it not under the umbrella of “the pursuit of happiness”? The reason the founding fathers left many places in the constitution vague is to allow the laws of the land to remain relevant by being flexible.
Lastly, it is clear that public opinion has changed on this issue with only 27% approval ratings in 1996 to 58% now approving in 2013. Because of this shift in opinion the argument against it has once again changed, though the argument in support has not. Since the majority of the people are beginning to accept gays and lesbians, the argument against equal rights has now shifted to a plea for letting the “democratic process work.” They continue to argue that this is an issue of the Supreme Court overstepping its boundaries of power and taking away the voice of the people and the states. It is an interesting factor of the strength of one side when they have to keep changing their technique of argument as the populace begins to disagree. Does it show a continually evolving, honorable, socially conscious fight for what they believe in, or a flailing, stubborn minority who will abandon and adopt a new belief every time another fails? Evidence supports the latter.
@FitzFile
Comments
Post a Comment