The recent same-sex marriage vote in the Senate...
This may- or may not- surprise some who read my blog or think that they "know" my politics, my views, my values, but I have no qualms with and no problem with allowing same-sex couples all of the rights (AND responsibilites) of marriage. While my personal view is that the insistence upon using the word "marriage" seems to be a bit of sticking a finger in the eye of more- what?- traditionalist types, whatever the semantics (marriage, civil union, domestic partnership) same sex couples willing to make a commitment to one another should be afforded equal standing before the law with their straight peers. (Ideally, the libertarian in me would rather complete seperation of marriage and state, including tax and entitlement benefits. But that's a dog for another day... And support for complete civil recogniton of same-sex couples should not mandate any religion being forced to sanction same if it goes against their beliefs.) None of the arguments advanced against endorsing same-sex couplings have held any water for me; it hardly "threatens" traditional marriage (what- some guy married for 30 years is all of a sudden going to leave his wife for a man if legalized? I haven't seen that happen- yet!- in Massachusetts!) Is allowing roughly 5% of the population the option of entering into such a union going to bring about the downfall of American society- how so? Are our basic values and beliefs that weak that they could be destroyed by allowing 5% of the population to enter into committed relationships? Is it somehow going to "turn" children gay? Studies show that younger people are far more supportive of glbt folks as is- that doesn't make them glbt, it just shows that, do to more exposure or whatever, they are more tolerant of different people, different ideas, different cultures. Will it somehow deplete our tax coffers, with these couples now able to receive partner benefits, entitlements, etc.. that they otherwise would not? Those bennies would be shelled out if Adam married Eve and Lilith married Steve, so what diff does it make if instead Adam's goes to Steve and Lilith's goes to Eve? It's the same amount of $$$ being redistributed. And, despite Massachusetts sometimes being called Sodom and Begorrah, the Bay State hasn't fallen apart as a result of court-mandated (wrong, BTW- more on that below) same-sex marriage. So count me in the aye column when it comes to support of and for legally-recognized same-sex couplings.
As for the vote in the US Senate last week...wrong, for many reasons. First, the sponsors knew that they did not possess anywhere near the 67 votes required. That alone should have been enough to keep it from the floor. Second, marriage laws have traditionally been defined by the states- federalism, anyone? Third, there already exists the federal Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in '96 by...Bill Clinton (and yes, he DOES have that big "D," for Democrat, after his name.) What this vote was was simply pandering to one perceived "base" of the majority party, politics at it's most crass (and lest one even think this is a practice solely done by Republicans, the Dems pander equally to parts of their perceived base, be it Big Labor, pro-abortionists, or others, whether they have the votes or not. It's one of the things that truly sucks about our politics.) I'm disappointed in President Bush pushing for this again, because he is simply practicing crass politics. President Bush holds no hate for gays, he truly does not, as myriad of his public- and private- comments have made clear. He does believe- just as his rival for the '04 Presidency, Democrat John Kerry, was on the record as believing- that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Both men are entitled to their views, founded in their faiths, values, life experiences, etc... and need not apologize for them if held without bigotry. And folks across the board are just as entitled to disagree. But this Senate vote was an exercise in cynicism, serving no other purpose. Amending our Constitution is- thankfully!- a truly onerous chore.
Having said this, there is a right way and wrong way to enact (or not) laws recognizing same-sex couples. Vermont and Connecticut did it the right way, with their legislatures passing legislation and their Governors (VT's Dean, in relative anonymity, and CT's Rell, more publically) signing them into law. This process allowed the citizens of these states to feel as if, via their elected representatives and officials, their voice, their will, was respected, was heard. Massachusetts, in contrast, had same-sex marriage enforced by fiat of a 4-3 (unelected) Supreme Judicial Court decision, rather than via the legislative and/or initiative petition/referendum process. The politics of the MA ruling should also give pause to all who mistakenly believe it is always Democrats who favor this and always Republicans who seek to thwart it- 3 of the 4 SJC Justices who ruled in the affirmative, including Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, were appointed by Republican Governors. This ruling came about in significant part because the MA legislature would not act on civil union-type legislation, despite it being an overwhelmingly- and veto proof- Democratic body, and despite the previous three Governors, Republicans all (Weld, Cellucci, Swift) being amongst THE most pro-gay rights of any in the nation, of any party. (The current Governor, Mitt Romney, also a Republican, is far less so, but even so, the legislature possessed the votes to override any Gubernatorial veto, if they chose to.) And also for those who futher want to make this simply a Republican vs. Democrat issue- in EVERY state where the question of disallowing same-sex marriage has been on the ballot, it has passed, from Blue State Oregon to Red State Mississippi, in numbers far in excess of registered Republicans; apparently more than a few independents, and Democrats, have a problem with it. I disagree with them, be they independents, Republicans, Democrats, or anything else. But it's not just those "mean-spirited, right-wing, Christianist Republicans" who are opposed.
"Freedom means freedom for everyone...People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to." These words ought to guide any and all discussion of same-sex unions (of for that matter, many other issues.)
Oh, who said that? Vice President Dick Cheney.
