Is Gay Marriage Next?
By Keith Boykin, in sexuality
Monday, June 30 2003, 9:58AM
It is impossible to overstate the gravity and breadth of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision last Thursday. On Friday, the Supreme Court told the Kansas courts to reconsider the conviction of a teenager under the state's sodomy law. By Sunday, powerful members of Congress were already calling for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
The constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage was proposed by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., on May 21 and was sent to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution on Wednesday, the day before the Supreme Court ruled.
The proposed amendment reads:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state under state or federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
This proposed constitutional amendment is wrong. First, the proposed amendment not only bans same-sex marriage in federal law, it attempts to do so on the state level as well. Thus, even if Massachusetts, Vermont or Hawaii chose to recognize same-sex marriage, the constitutional amendment would prohibit those states from doing so. So much for the conservative faith in states' rights. It turns out they only believe in states' rights when the states are conservative.
The amendment would also vitiate the meaning of Article IV of the constitution. Article IV requires each state to give "full faith and credit . . . to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." The Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton did not preempt the constitution. The constitution can only been superseded by a constitutional amendment.
The constitution has only been amended 27 times in our history, and only once — with prohibition in 1919 — has it been amended to limit the rights of the people. That experiment was a failure, and the prohibition amendment was repealed just 14 years after it was ratified.
The conservatives may not like it, but the great tradition of our constitutional law has been a mostly steady movement toward greater freedom of the people.
The constitution was written in a time when blacks, women and young people could not vote. Those norms have changed over time. The 15th amendment in 1870 gave blacks the right to vote. The 19th amendment in 1920 gave women the right to vote. And the 26th amendment in 1971 lowered the voting age to 18.
The new conservative urgency to amend the constitution directly follows from the Supreme Court's ruling on Thursday and the potential effects on other courts. In the next few weeks, Massachusetts may leapfrog over Vermont's liberal civil unions law and become the first state to recognize same-sex marriage. A case is already pending before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, but that case relies on state law, not federal law.
On Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., was quick to criticize the court and endorse the constitutional amendment against gay marriage. "I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually — or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist said on ABC's This Week.
It's not clear to me why Senator Frist believes his zone of privacy is endangered by a court ruling that explicitly protects privacy. Nor do I understand how a decision that protects private consensual noncommercial adult sexual behavior would have any impact on drug activity or prostitution.
As for marriage, Frist said, "I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between — what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined — as between a man and a woman. So I would support the amendment."
When the most powerful senator in the country signs onto antigay legislation only days after the Supreme Court issues a pro-gay ruling, it's easy to see the effects of the high court's ruling and the importance of determining who sits on the court.
Without vigorous opposition from the LGBT community, an amendment to ban same-sex marriage could muster the votes of two-thirds of the Congress and 3/4ths of the required state legislatures to become enacted. But such an amendment defies the slow but steady movement of the country.
America is slowly learning to accept gays and lesbians. The Supreme Court responded to that development on Thursday. The court did not lead the country; it followed it.
Now it's time for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Americans to lead the country into greater understanding of our lives.
Comments conceal
alicia banks
June 30 2003, 2:20PM
excellent column!
i wonder how many of these bigots who claim to view marriage so sacredly also revere pre-nuptial agreements & divorce lawyers!!!
and how many slander and bash all homos for not having spousal/marital relos?
the walls of selective inhumanity and policing are finally tumbling down
peace
ab
Da D.L. Criub
June 30 2003, 10:07PM
Another good article Mr. Boykin. I have a question for you though, since you are up on these kinds of issue. I am not trying to be contrary but don't you think it is odd that The Supreme Court handed down this ruling? Isn't this one of the more conservative courts? Do you think they suddenly saw thew light and did this or was this part of some kind of back room deal made to appease someone?
I am trying to take this ruling on face value but as you know, nothing is as it seems in government. If I see other rulings dealing with Gay issues have this same slant then I will drop my cynical/paranoid stance. It just seems a little too good to be true for me. I’d like your opinion.
Keith Boykin
July 1 2003, 8:47AM
D.L.,
It's not too good to be true. This is not the first time the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of gay rights. The same court struck down a Colorado law in 1996 in the case of Romer v. Evans. The same 6 members of the court (O'Connor, Stevens, Souter, Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg) voted to invalidate Colorado's anti-gay law in that case as in this one.
Melvin A. Marshall
July 1 2003, 8:55AM
indeed, excellent column keith!!
this article is another example of why i think the time is propitious for keith to write a book on this topic seeing that he was in the clinton white house and has first hand knowledge of these issues. i promise that i would buy the book!! :-)
cheers!!
mm.
Marc
July 2 2003, 8:02PM
Does the Supreme Court ruling only affect the LGBT community? Sodomy applies to any sexual orientation, does it not? Did the ruling only include LGBTs? Could the reason, in part, for the ruling, be that it does not only affect LGBTs??
Marc
Wes J. Orr, M.S.W.
July 6 2003, 10:55AM
From a human rights perspective it is great to see that our court has finally come on board. The private sexual lives of adult individuals should be of no-one's concern. I hope that one day soon, gay persons can be married and are entitled to the same, and not special, rights as those already married. Also, as these would be civil marriages and not necessarily church sponsored the "sacrament" of marriage, as it is discussed, would not be infringed upon. I do not feel the churches should be mandated to recognize this law although if my own were to I would be grateful.
Lawrence Rush
July 9 2003, 9:29PM
I think that the ruling was a big break through for man kind, not only for gays. The reason is that we have to began to except each other for who we are and not what we do, etc...Even though the fight is not over, we have to remember that the battle starts in our homes, jobs etc.. and the only way to fight is to be true to yourselves and not afraid to be who we are.
Bowser
April 6 2004, 12:12PM
i think that this is wrong, Gay marrage is WRONG. i am all against gay marrage... Gays running the country? NO WAY! It contradicts the Bible and religion. If you're gay you are commiting a sin against God and Christ.
There is no time to repent now....
Allison
April 11 2004, 7:08AM
Where can I find out when this was posted?
Alex
June 13 2004, 3:45AM
i am 15 and doing a report on this subject fyi lol
What i dont get is "the great tradition of our constitutional law has been a mostly steady movement toward greater freedom of the people."
what i have noticed (in my few years of life) is that the only movement has been moral decay. When this country started people had repsect for each other, didnt have sex till marrage etc etc. So what i am saying is the only movement i have seen is to human failure in how we act and the pride we cover our actions with. This is just one more step in Americans perverse character treats. Plus if i hear one more word about this your born gay bullshit i am gonna attack that person. You choose to be gay, the only thing in this world you can change is yourself.
PS. being gay is a sin but thats no reason to look down on gays its just a sin, to look down on someone for commiting a sin is the most ignorent thing i have ever seen.
if anyone would like to agree or disagree with what i said email me free feel =.....sorry if my spelling sucks =/
kristen
August 19 2004, 11:49PM
After reading this article I would like to say, good job! why should anyone care that someone of the same sex wants to get married to eachother?
I find that our country is filled with red neck a-holes who cant quite get over the fact that there are gay people out there. They just want to keep things in america the same and not have any changes. Well from americas history I dont think we would want to do that. If they dont allow same sex marrages they are going to have some angry men and women on their hands. I just wish ever one that wants to ban same sex marrages to have someone close to them become gay. Then those bastards would see what its like. but I really wish that on bush...he really needs it.
What these people need to realize is that gay people are the same as us,and that they have feelings too. and One more thing I would like to say.the girl,alex, who is fifteen(my age). Some people are infact born gay. I know someone where you could tell even when they were a kid growing up next door to you. they are BORN gay. it can be something you go through but most of the time you are born gay.
Actually I want to say one more thing this is to bowser. Why the F*** would you care if someone was commiting a sin against god? its not your ass thats in trouble is it? the way I see it, everone is bound to meet their maker..(if there is one). For all we know god and the devil could be all a fairy tale. and guess what? you know that over the years the bible was changed by priests.
Also the whole story about the giant boat is fake. for it to flood the whole world in 30 days and nighs the rain drops would have to be atleast 4 miles long and maybe 3 miles wide, and for it to exaporate in the time that it did the temperature would have to get up to boiling temperatures that would melt your flesh right off your body. well, thats all I have to say.
kristen