|
|
February 27, 2004/Adar 5 5764, Vol. 56, No. 23
Gay unions and states' rightsJONATHAN FRIENDLYWhat a dreadful waste of national time this same-sex marriage issue has become.Washington has two unfinished peace struggles to wage, in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a massive loss of jobs, an uncontrolled federal deficit, gigantic trade imbalances, under-performing schools, a busted Social Security system, runaway business corruption and a deteriorating natural environment. And we're being asked to concentrate on same-sex marriages as a threat to the republic? President George W. Bush wants a constitutional amendment "because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country." Get real. Whether marriage is a civil proceeding or a religious one, it clearly isn't the business of the federal government to say who may or may not enter into that commitment. Of course, the national government can decide what relationships it wants to recognize as valid for purposes of benefits. But it has already done so, through the Defense of Marriage Act that then-President Clinton signed into law in 1996 after a judge in Hawaii had overturned that state's prohibition on recognizing same-sex unions. The states and organized religions have traditionally shared responsibility for deciding what constitutes a valid marriage, and that system has worked just fine for the country. The states decide on the legality of the union; the religions determine the sanctity of it. Despite the spate of images in recent weeks showing same-sex couples embracing in San Francisco's city hall, the odds remain heavily stacked against gay marriage. Thirty-seven states have already passed laws saying they will not treat same-sex unions as a valid marriage; 20 states may go even further by amending their constitutions to ban those unions. Mainstream religions have generally stuck to blessing only opposite-sex marriages, but some give rabbis and other ministers freedom to bless civil unions of same-sex partners. We need to protect the states as the laboratories where policies get tested. The current wave of city-sponsored gay marriages will have to bow to state laws, but the states should not be put into the straightjacket of a national constitutional amendment. We have trouble enough with marriage in this country; half of them end in divorce, hardly a testament to the sanctity of the process. No constitutional amendment will affect that sorry statistic. And an amendment aimed at discouraging gay unions of whatever legal status is not going to succeed any more than did the amendment to stop drinking. Since no one is forcing a rabbi or any minister to bless a union that he or she thinks is religiously unacceptable, we ought not to tolerate a constitutional prohibition against what is for the couples and those who officiate a matter of religious choice. President Bush and the Congress should concentrate on the real problems that national government can address. Gay marriage isn't one of them. Jonathan Friendly is contributing editor for Jewish Renaissance Media. |
