Women's Rights

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:

• Time Off Instead of Time Paid
• Tax-credit taxing if you are too poor to pay taxes
• Surprise! The Supreme Court Protects Family and Medical Leave for State Workers

For Better or Worse: Bush Backs Gay Marriage Ban

On February 24, 2004, President Bush announced his support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. With careful and precise language, the seven-minute speech touched upon many of the arguments swirling around the issue.

A response to both supporters and critics, the speech acts as a template for the debate. Through analyzing Bush’s declarations, one can consider how well government is mediating marriage, for better or for worse.

Response to "activist" judges

Bush made it clear that the amendment is a reaction to judges and local officials in Massachusetts, California, and New Mexico who have decided to offer marriage licenses to lesbian and gay couples. Due to a clause in the Constitution that requires each state to give “full faith and credit" to the public proceedings of every other state, gay rights activists argue that these marriages must be honored and recognized everywhere in America.

Bush explained that gay and lesbian marriages are in direct conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton. The law defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman and declares that no state must accept other states’ definitions of marriage. However, a court could declare this law unconstitutional, which is why Bush believes that the Constitution itself must be changed.

The meaning of marriage

Bush went on to say that the amendment will "prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever" and that “attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country."

Bush suggests that as lesbians and gays marry, the structure of marriage changes, creating consequences for all of us. But neither the Bush administration nor its supporters have explained how marriage will change and what the specific consequences will be.

Defense of Marriage a defense of gender roles?

In his speech, Bush defined marriage in terms of gender. He did not mention gay marriage or same-sex marriage but rather, “marriage licenses to people of the same gender." It is curious that Bush uses the word “gender" instead of “sex" here. By using “gender," he implies that marriage in not based on biological sex or procreation, but on the identifications and roles that constitute gender.

Feminists argue that gender is socially constructed, that the characteristics and roles typical of men and women are not natural, but learned. These roles may be reinforced by marriage and could soften or dissolve if marriage is no longer based on gender. In other words, one of the “serious consequences" of gay marriage may be a crumbling of gender roles. To some, this would be a positive consequence.

Civil unions versus civil marriage

Bush then explained that the amendment would not prevent states from granting lesbians and gays civil unions: “The amendment should fully protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage."

Why is the Bush administration willing to permit gays civil unions or domestic partnerships but not civil marriages? What are the differences?

Marriage

• No matter where a civil marriage is granted, it is recognized by all fifty states and around the world.
• According to a General Accounting Office report from 1997, marriage provides 1,049 federal benefits and legal protections. Family leave, Social Security survivor benefits, Medicaid benefits, Medicare benefits, and immigration sponsorship are examples.
• Married couples that wish to divorce may do so in any state.
• In 49 states, only heterosexual couples may marry. One state, Massachusetts, plans to offer gay and lesbian couples the right to marry beginning May 16, 2004. The city of San Francisco currently allows gays to marry.

Civil unions/ domestic partnerships

• Civil unions and domestic partnerships are only recognized by the state in which they were granted.
• Civil unions and domestic partnerships provide state benefits only; they do not provide the myriad of benefits granted by the federal government.
• Couples who wish to break their civil union or domestic partnership must have residency in the state where it was established.
• Currently, only Vermont offers civil unions. California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and New York offer domestic partnerships. New Jersey will provide domestic partnerships in July 2004.
• In essence, civil unions and domestic partnerships are equivalent.

Clearly, a civil marriage is much more advantageous than a civil union or domestic partnership. Gay rights activists argue that gays and lesbians should be equal under the law and not discriminated against based on sexual orientation.

Civil marriage and religious marriage

There are (at least) two types of marriage: civil and religious. Civil marriage is represented by a license granted by the state. That license provides the legal protections described above. Gay rights activists are focused on winning civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples.

If they succeed, religious marriage will not be directly affected. Religions will remain autonomous and protected by the First Amendment; they may, therefore, accept or deny marriage rites to any couple. While many faiths and churches perform marriage ceremonies for gays and lesbians, each faith can continue to define marriage according to its own traditions.

Bush did not mention the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage in his speech, though it is important to note that government will not influence religion on this matter. Yet, to what extent is religion influencing government?

The debate continues

Many who are opposed to gay marriage do so because of their religious beliefs. To what extent should these beliefs affect government? Should government regulate marriage at all? If government does not regulate marriage, how can married couples be protected? Or should legal and financial protections be offered to individuals and their choices?

Discuss these questions with other WomenMatter readers in one of our online forums. Read more about this issue and other Life Issues. When you find something you’re passionate about, contact your representatives, and let them know what you think.

click here to go to next section

return to top