Political, religious, legal, and social issues remain at the forefront of the same-sex marriage issue in the United States. Its legalization in New York--the sixth state to do so--this past summer was considered a major boost by supporters with the U.S. Supreme Court possibly ruling on the subject during its current term.
Critics of allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry dispute whether it is favored by a majority of Americans, despite the judicial approvals at the state level so far and in the city of Washington, D.C. Maryland, which rejected same-sex marriage previously, is likely to consider the matter again in its upcoming legislative session.
There it now has the backing of Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Catholic who has been criticized for his support by Baltimore’s Archbishop Edwin O’Brien who urged O’Malley not to attempt to change “the definition of marriage” out of “mere political expediency.” Similar to other elected officials, O’Malley once favored civil unions as sufficient for gay couples to achieve equality.
Some in Maryland electorate have doubts about allowing law change
At the same time in Maryland, despite its overwhelmingly Democratic electorate, same-sex marriage is opposed by a large number of Catholics in the state and by African-American religious leaders. Some clergy have said same-sex marriage is not helpful in the black community given the frequent instances of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent households. Many members of those same groups intend to lobby Maryland legislators against the measure again.
“This isn’t a topic that advocates for gay rights or their many black supporters relish discussing, because it focuses on wedge where they wish there was a tighter bond. But polls indicate that support for same-sex marriage lags among black Americans,” Frank Bruni wrote in “Race, Religion and Same-Sex Marriage,” in the New York Times October 31, 2011.
Maryland’s Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, who is black, has told fellow supporters of same-sex marriage in the state to expect a subsequent public referendum if lawmakers approve it.
Call for more opportunity by state voters to decide marriage issue
One of the principal legal objections to same-sex marriage is that judges and lawmakers in different states have decided the issue rather than voters. In different states where it has been on the ballot, voters said no or favored a constitutional ban.
Massachusetts became the first state in 2004 to legalize same-sex marriage when its Supreme Court ruled it was required under the state constitution’s equal protection clause. Others that have followed suit are Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, and the District of Columbia.
Among states in which measures did not pass are Hawaii where voters turned down the legalization of same-sex marriage in 1998, in Rhode Island which instead approved civil unions, Maine where voters repealed a same-sex marriage law in a 2009 referendum, and Oregon. Several states prohibit same-sex marriage or the recognition of it by other states.
California same-sex marriage opponents to argue case
In November 2011, the California Supreme Court set the stage for another legal case on the issue to emerge by allowing opponents to defend their position in court. In 2008 state voters approved the Proposition 8 ballot referendum which outlawed same-sex marriage there.
The state’s high court has ruled that sponsors of Prop 8 can argue in favor of the initiative after which federal appeals judges will determine whether the statewide prohibition on same-sex marriage is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. State officials in California have declined to defend the measure.
In August 2010 U.S. District Judge R. Vaughn Walker struck down Prop 8 as unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which sits in San Francisco, asked the California Supreme Court to rule on whether advocates of the measure could undertake an appeal which will now happen with the high court’s ruling. The state Supreme Court previously allowed same-sex marriages performed in California before the ban was instituted to stand.
In February 2011, President Barack Obama, who has not come out in support of same-sex marriage, instructed the U.S. Department of Justice to discontinue defending the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law Congress passed that allows states not to be bound by same-sex marriages performed in states where they are legal as well as denies federal benefits to married couples of the same sex.
“President Obama may be the last nominee for president from his party who does not openly declare support for same-sex marriage. It is now not only acceptable but encouraged for Democratic politicians with national ambitions to advocate full marriage equality for gay couples,” John Wagner said in “ Why the Democrats learned to love same-sex marriage ” in the September 9, 2011 Washington Post.
Under Obama’s administration, he supported ending the prohibition on homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. military, in addition to his opposition to the constitutional amendment proposed by former President George W. Bush to ban same-sex marriage.
Conservative critics accuse Obama of undermining traditional marriage
But the president’s actions have been condemned by some conservative commentators as destructive of traditional values and an affront to married heterosexual couples. In a February 24, 2011 column in the Washington Times, “Obama’s homosexual America,” Jeffrey T. Kuhner said what the administration did regarding the Defense of Marriage Act “is not only a severe violation of its constitutional responsibilities but a blatant surrender to the homosexual lobby. DOMA was passed in 1996 by Congress and signed by then-President Bill Clinton. The law defines marriage for federal purposes as a legal union between a man and a woman…Hence, the legal purpose of DOMA is to act as a firewall against the most revolutionary social-engineering experiment of our time: redefining marriage.”
Support for legalizing same-sex marriage in New York was seen as one reason for Democrat David Weprin’s loss to Republican Bob Turner in the September 2011 special election in the state’s Ninth Congressional District that Republicans had not held since the 1920s. That race, to replace former Rep. Anthony Weiner, who resigned from Congress after using Twitter to send a sexually suggestive picture of himself, was for a seat representing a large portion of Queens and a slice of Brooklyn, in a district with a large number of Orthodox Jews who opposed Weprin’s vote in the state legislature to allow same-sex couples to marry.
Aside from the legal and political implications, views are mixed on the subject even as it seems to have more societal acceptance particularly among the young. Many who are older and have strongly held religious views continue to view marriage as a legal union exclusively between a man and a woman.
Some who have been to a same-sex wedding for the first time describe it as unusual and different from seeing a man and woman marry. Still, proponents of the change in law point out that many legal rights are tied to marriage and that those opposed to same-sex marriage are not truly affected by homosexuals being allowed to marry other than being upset by the idea or wishing they could prevent it from taking place.
Sources:
- John Wagner, “O’Malley, archbishop at odds over same-sex marriage, letters show,” Washington Post, August 8, 2011
- John Wagner, “Why the Democrats learned to love same-sex marriage,” Washington Post, September 9, 2011
- Frank Bruni, “Race, Religion and Same-Sex Marriage,” New York Times, October 31, 2011
- Maura Dolan, “Backers win right to fight for Prop. 8,” Los Angeles Times, November 18, 2011
- Michael Levenson, “In R.I., hopes fading for gay marriage bill,” Boston Globe, June 28, 2011
- Jeffrey T. Kuhner, “Obama’s homosexual America,” Washington Times, February 24, 2011
John Seidenberg - John Seidenberg has worked on newspapers, newsletters, radio news, and produced specialized news publications as well as freelance ...
