 | |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The
Great Gay Marriage Debate |
Posted:
05.17.04
|
 |
 |
Massachusetts Monday stepped into the increasingly hot spotlight
of gay marriage, becoming the first state in the nation to offer
court-approved, legal marriage to same-sex couples.
Printer-friendly versions: HTML
/ PDF
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that
towns and cities must begin to marry same-sex couples on May 17.
But opponents, including Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, are working
to shut the window opened by the state's highest court.
Although
the situation in Massachusetts is the center of media attention,
most other states also are dealing with the issue. Some are trying
to shore up their bans on gay marriage. Others face mounting court
challenges from same-sex couples seeking the same rights as heterosexual
couples. They want to be legally recognized on tax and insurance
forms, in wills, adoption proceedings, in their places of worship
and in their communities.
And the furious state debates have drawn the federal government
into the controversy. President George W. Bush is urging Congress
to pass an amendment to the Constitution that would ban gay marriages.
If such an amendment does pass it would be only the 28th time
the Constitution has been altered since its ratification in 1788.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
What's at
stake? |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Part of the problem with the gay marriage debate is the legal
chaos that results from different states having different laws
concerning same-sex marriage. As of mid-May, courts in five relatively
liberal states -- California, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and
Washington -- are being asked to rule on same-sex marriages already
performed there by officials and clergy.
In five relatively conservative states -- Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Oklahoma and Utah -- voters will decide this fall
about changing their state constitutions to outlaw gay marriage.
Four other states -- Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada -- already
have constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage.
"It's going to be complicated for many years. We're going
to have some free-marriages states and some that are not,"
said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force.
|
 |
 |
 |
The federal
way |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The most direct path to clearing up the chaos is a federal constitutional
amendment. Without it, rival sides are likely to turn endlessly
to state courts until the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court
in the country, decides the issue.
But
an amendment doesn't look likely to happen. Although several national
polls indicate a majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriages,
any amendment to ban gay unions would need to be approved by two-thirds
of both the House and Senate, where Republicans have only slim
majorities. Then, three-fourths (38) of the 50 states have to
ratify it. Of the 10,000 amendments that have been proposed, only
27 have made it through the process.
|
 |
 |
 |
Why now? |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The most recent struggle over same-sex marriages first bubbled
up in Vermont. In 2000, former governor and Democratic presidential
candidate, Howard Dean, signed a law creating "civil unions"
between same-sex partners, making Vermont the first state to legally
recognize gay unions, although it stopped short of endorsing legal
marriages.
But it was the month-long parade of couples who got married in
San Francisco in February and March that captured the nation's
attention and focused proponents and opponents on the gay marriage
issue. The California Supreme Court ended that parade, but the
debate is nowhere near over there and elsewhere.
|
 |
 |
 |
What will
happen? |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Some opponents of same-sex marriage believe that politicians
will have to heed public opinion and back the federal constitutional
amendment.
"When
the lawsuits start to export what happens in Massachusetts, you
will have a political powder keg," said Matt Daniels of the
Alliance for Marriage. He helped draft the proposed federal amendment
and has said recent action in the state legislatures proves the
"grassroots" theory will create a political tide against
gay marriage.
But it looks more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule
before that happens.
"There will be a split of authority -- one state court will
say it's valid, another will say it isn't," said Duke University
law professor William Reppy. "Then the U.S. Supreme Court
would have their hand forced and hear the case. They don't let
splits of authority run rampant around the country for very long."
--
Jule Gardner, Online NewsHour
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|