|
Women's Rights
What's New? - Archive
WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide.
Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Women's Rights Archives page.
Since Women's Rights is in many ways an umbrella issue, WomenMatter will highlight related updates from other Life Issue areas here:
Gay Marriage: A Journey Through Language, Politics, History and Religion
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, a Massachusetts court ruled that gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry in that state. The ruling set off a fireworks display of debates in the media, around the dinner table, and on the campaign trail. These debates are likely to continue through the 2004 presidential election and certainly through the presidential primary.
Voters who support gay marriage will have an easier time choosing a candidate in the primary, because the issue sets apart three of the presidential candidates.
Out of ten candidates, only Carol Moseley Braun, Dennis Kucinich, and Al Sharpton believe that gays and lesbians should be granted full civil rights. George Bush, Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, and Joe Lieberman all oppose gay marriage, though the Democratic candidates are open to civil unions.
To arrive at an informed opinion on gay marriage is to consider the abstract and the real since the subject of gay marriage weaves together theory and lived experience. It crisscrosses language, politics, history, and religion, rests in daily life, and then travels back through theory again, bringing with it a thread of real-life consequences.
Defining marriage - language
In order to fairly judge gay marriage, one must consider the meaning of marriage itself.
If you had to explain the concept of marriage to a space alien, what would you say? What is the purpose of marriage? Consider your definition. Does that definition limit marriage to heterosexual unions?
Some opponents argue that the purpose of marriage is procreation. According to this point of view, lesbian and gay marriage disrupts the very function of marriage. Many supporters view marriage as a public pronouncement of love and commitment. From this standpoint, there is nothing inherent to marriage that requires the union to be between a man and a woman.
If the purpose of marriage is procreation, should couples that do not intend to have children be allowed to wed? Yet, if marriage is merely a civic confirmation of romantic love, shouldn't polygamy and other nontraditional unions be legal as well?
To find your definition of marriage is to define the issue of gay marriage for yourself. From your description, you can find an exactness that helps you to navigate through the theoretical aspects of this debate.
Politics
Opponents want to limit the definition of marriage to "a union between a man and a woman." Drawing a boundary around the meaning of marriage is an effective way to keep lesbians and gays out.
If this language were added to the Constitution through an amendment, it would be very difficult for lesbians and gays to win the right to marriage. To do so, the Constitution would have to be amended yet again, to repeal the initial amendment.
To add an amendment to the Constitution, two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of states must approve it. Though the process of adding a constitutional amendment is an arduous one, gay marriage opponents believe it is a real possibility, since about 59% of Americans oppose the legalization of gay marriage (Pew Research Center for People and Press).
Some who are opposed to gay marriage are not in favor of the amendment. House Majority leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) feels that altering the Constitution is an extreme measure. Like many lawmakers, DeLay adheres to the philosophy that the Constitution should not be modified unless absolutely necessary.
Gay rights groups are appalled by the idea of a constitutional amendment that would block their marriage rights, thereby writing discrimination into the Constitution.
History
Many political and cultural commentators are comparing this civil rights struggle with those that have come before. The debate mirrors those of the 1950s and 60s. In the middle of the 20th century, many argued that people of color were equal but separate, and should have their own lunch counters and bathrooms.
The domestic partnership vs. marriage debates are not altogether different. Many of the Democratic candidates are in favor of civil unions, in which lesbian and gay couples would have some partnership rights, but not the full-blown rights and recognition of married couples. This argument employs a sort of separate but equal logic. Gays and lesbians are allowed their own form of marriage -domestic partnership - while legal marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples.
Religion
Some argue that discrimination against gays and lesbians is not at all like discrimination against people of color. This point of view usually rests on the belief that lesbian and gay lifestyles are sinful.
If one's belief system frames gay and lesbian relationships as immoral, it is difficult to approve of laws that legitimize those relationships. At issue is the relationship between church and state. Should the religious beliefs of millions of Americans affect law?
Daily life
As Adam Goodheart pointed out in his The New York Times editorial, the dispute over gay marriage often exists in the abstract. Theories of language and meaning, politics, history, religion, society, gender, etc. shape the debate over gay marriage. But the issue of gay marriage is also a lived experience, affecting the day to day of lesbian and gay partnerships and the friends and families of lesbians and gays.
What do you think? Discuss this issue with other WomenMatter readers in one of our online forums. Read more about gay marriage, and contact your representatives to let them know your ideas.
Article Posted on: 11/30/2003
click here to go to next section
return
to top
|
