< PREVIOUS ] [ 2004 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
The sun rose this morning. Also, Western Civilization and our Republic remain as strong as they were last week, before the Commonwealth of Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
This observation puts me in opposition to at least two Colorado elected officials who serve in Washington, D.C.: Sen. Wayne Allard, and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, both sponsors of an amendment to the federal constitution which would ban such unions. Musgrave, in particular, warns of dire consequences unless the federal government halts these Bay State marriages.
On the other hand, it puts me in the strange position of
being in agreement with Vice-President Dick Cheney. The
topic came up during the 2000 campaign, and he responded
with That matter is regulated by the states,
he
said. I think different states are likely to come to
different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't
think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this
area.
So, what are we to make of this? The opposing arguments come in several forms. One is that four un-elected judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court are inflicting their radical agenda on the rest of the country, and it's time to restrain them.
The problem with this approach is that gay couples no doubt feel that our country is imposing a radical agenda on them. Our laws take away their right to decide whom to be with, whom to care about, whom to love and share a home with. Gay activists merely want the right to choose their own mates, to be responsible for one another, to share decisions, and insurance, and designate who will inherit their earthly goods.
And these do seem to be rights that heterosexual couples enjoy whether they've made good decisions or bad ones, and whether they're licentious, adulterous, abusive, selfish, or just downright offensive.
This is not a matter of whether couples are moral, since
the state sanctions lots of lousy marriages between uncouth
louts. It's a matter of who gets to decide whom you will
mate with -- and nothing more. If someone wants to make
that into a religious issue on the grounds that marriage is
a sacrament,
then that's all the more reason that
this is no proper business of the government.
Another argument, perhaps a potent one in an election year with a presidential challenger from Massachusetts, is that the Bay State is a hot-bed of radicalism and we should be suspicious of anything that emanates from that commonwealth.
There is some historical truth to this. The American Revolution was born in Massachusetts as much as it was born anywhere, with the first battle at Lexington and the leadership of cousins John and Samuel Adams. Before the Civil War, the abolition movement (a fierce attack on American property and traditions) was based in Massachusetts. It was the only state that George McGovern carried in 1972.
But when it comes to marriage, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. The national average in 2001 was 4.0 per 1,000 people; Nevada, Arkansas and Wyoming had rates over 6.0, and the Massachusetts rate was only 2.6.
So it's hardly a bastion of libertinism, even if some of its voters routinely re-elect Rep. Barney Frank, who's liberal and openly gay.
The big argument is that if gay marriages are legal in
one state, then they have to be recognized in all states,
under the full faith and credit
clause of the
federal constitution.
There is already a 1996 federal law which says that
states don't have to recognize same-sex marriages. It
hasn't been tested in court, but note that a marriage
license
is a license.
States appear to retain the option to honor or ignore
other states' licenses. A Colorado driver's license will
keep you from being cited for failure to possess a valid
driver's license
if you're pulled over in Wyoming or
New Mexico, but a Colorado license to practice law does not
automatically allow you to represent clients before the
courts of those states.
So despite the rantings of Marilyn Musgrave and her allies, there's no certainty that Massachusetts weddings would affect Colorado at all. And even if it did, well, how is my marriage or yours thereby threatened?
The main effect of all this right-wing hand-wringing is political. It gives conservative candidates another issue. They can add to the list -- abortion, flag-burning, raunchy TV, to name a few -- when they're tossing red meat out to the faithful.
Then they can return to office and get back to the real business of rewarding their campaign contributors.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2004 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >