Are you outraged that we are discriminating against gay couples all over this supposedly free nation? You should be! It’s time to make banning gay marriage unconstitutional and the Supreme Court can do that soon.
Not long ago former President Bill Clinton called on the United States Supreme Court to overturn a law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages; which he regretfully signed into law in 1996.
Clinton recently wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Post that he “signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)” in a “very different time.” At the time there were zero states that recognized same-sex marriages. Some states were moving that way, and many viewed some of the options that were coming out of Washington as “draconian” (imagine that, Republicans in Washington D.C. dreaming up abrasive plans to stop progress on gay rights).
At the time those who supported DOMA believed it “would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.” If the debate would have ended then, we would not have seen so much progress today.
There should be little doubt that the religious right (Republicans) was pushing hard to end the prospect of gay marriage legalization for good.
Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart writes that “Since DOMA was signed into law, 31 states have enacted their own constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. That’s seven states shy of the 38 needed to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
Seven states shy of legalizing discrimination! How horrible would it of been to know that our tools in fighting government sanctioned discrimination were so close to being lost? I shouldn’t have to answer that for you.
Clinton is correct in saying it's time to strike down this down as unconstitutional—it’s also time to make marriage equality a right. I as a straight male has a right to marry anybody I want, as long as this person is not violating some antediluvian law written two-thousand years ago by someone that likely believed and evil act constituted women showing their face in public.
On March 27, 2013, the Supreme Court will hear a pair of cases on gay marriage, and in June when the ruling is handed down, the court can make a bold statement by going as far as to say banning gay marriage is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court can go one of two routes. Of the two cases they will hear dealing with state versions of same-sex marriage laws, the one from California could establish or reject a constitutional right to same-sex marriages. The second case, from New York, will challenge a federal law requiring the federal government to turn down gay married couples who seek benefits in states that allow same-sex marriages.
History could be made if the Supreme Court says banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. Banning gay marriage is discriminatory, and should be abolished. Why the court would not come to this same conclusion would be politics and not logic.
Conservatives groups are already looking to sway the court on this issue.
Through a public-record request documents, Sofia Resnick (The American Independent & The Huffington Post) learned that conservative financiers of a "flawed and widely cited academic study" that is critical of gay couples with children timed the release to influence courts, including the Supreme Court. They will do this despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The Witherspoon Institute searched for a professor from a major university. The goal was to influence public policy on gay marriage. They made it clear to the donors that the goal was specifically to hurt the gay marriage movement. Despite of the fact that this study has been slammed for the quality of its methodology, funding methods, and probity in academics, opponents of gay marriage are now using it to cite in cases that deal with marriage equality. They have no problem using a study that is wrong, as long as it helps advance their agenda.
Mark Regnerus is the University of Texas associate sociology professor that conducted the study which found that children who grow up in households with at least one parent that had a same-sex relationship has an increased chances of having “negative social, psychological, and economic outcomes than children raised by a married heterosexual couple.” (This is simple not truth and no study has found it to be the least bit factual)
However, there are reasons to be suspicious of this study.
Records have indicated that the academic consultant that the University of Texas hired to do data analysis for this study used to be a longtime bedfellow of the Witherspoon Institute.
Additionally, the results of this study are misleading at best. The study compares families with two always-married straight parents to some families who only had one parent but were calling them gay heads of households. The study could be a denunciation of single parent households.
These tactics and jaundiced views coming from social conservatives are downright disturbing. This research was done with a stated agenda. It leaves to much room for the researchers to feel pressure to come up with certain results, especially when the data analyzer is a bedfellow of the group that is funding the study.
Additionally, valid studies have shown that children raised in same-sex households are just fine if not better than traditional households.
According to Stanford Sociologist Michael Rosenfeld, children of same-sex couples have essentially the same educational achievement as those in heterosexual households. So if the opposition to gay marriage wants to talk family values, they will have to present some valid information.
Adam Gorlick writes that "Do gay couples make for good parents? Will their children – whether adopted, conceived with the help of a surrogate or brought in from a pre-existing relationship – adjust, adapt and succeed in a world dominated by traditional families?"
"The answers usually depend on who's giving them, and come dressed in anecdotes and colored by bias. But Stanford sociologist Michael Rosenfeld brings something new to the conversation: facts and figures derived from the country's largest data bank – the U.S. Census."
It’s clear that the religious right does not want to accept this reality. Gay couples are just as capable of raising children as straight couples. Even though this knowledge won't change everyone's mind, it strengthens the argument for legalizing gay marriage.
The fight for full legalization has been raging for years now. The Supreme Court has the power to end all this, and history could judge the court harshly if it fails to do so.
A Federal Judge in San Francisco has already issued a ruling that says the Constitution requires states to allow same sex-marriages—and this decision has been stayed. A divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit then affirmed the decision. All the Supreme Court has to do is agree with the lower courts. This would end the unequal treatment against gay couples. This wrongdoing is a blight on the country.
It would be lamentable waist of an opportunity if the Supreme Court denies a minority groups a right the rest of the population already receives. It’s been said that Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the left on Obamacare because of the reputation of the court. How could he do anything less in this case? Hopefully perennial swing vote Justice Kennedy will side with the left on this case. By failing to do so, they will do harm to the court.
How can the majority of this court look at Americans and say it’s constitutional for the Federal Government and States to treat gay couples as second-class citizens? There are no valid arguments for banning gay marriage. There are no valid legal arguments for banning gay marriage. There are only religious arguments for banning gay marriage, even though recently opponents have attempted to argue that nature demands marriage be between a man and woman. Nature must have forgotten to tell animals this.
According to Nick Collins of the “The Telegraph”, “new research suggests homosexual animals – often dismissed by biologists as the exceptions that prove the rule – may be more common than previously thought.”
There nothing in nature that demands conformity to Christian doctrine.
The right will say they are protecting the institution of marriage.
According to Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation, the state should protect marriage as between a man and woman because marriage is society's "least restrictive means to ensure the well-being of future citizens." Basically he is saying that marriage will encourage adults to "commit permanently and exclusively to each other and children."
"While respecting everyone's liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for procreative love, childbearing, and child-rearing" wrote Anderson.
As proof he points to this quote from Chicago Archbishop Francis Cardinal George:
"[T]he nature of marriage is not a religious question. Marriage come to us from nature." [T]he state protects marriage because it is essential to family and to the common good of society. But neither Church nor State invented marriage, and neither can change its nature."
He then goes on to explain why nature and nature's God, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, gives us two sexes to procreate. As if we do not know how humans create other humans.
Opponents of gay marriage have lost the religious debate. This country does not base its laws on religious doctrine—which was the bases many use to contend gay marriage should be banned. The First Amendment bans that. It prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion or laws based of a certain religion.
Last year a coalition of nearly 40 religious leaders attempted to present a united front with a purpose of recasting the debate as one were they are not concerned about having to marry gay partners, but one were they are worried we will end up "forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations -- throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies -- to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct."
Suddenly they are worried about developing church and state conflicts. How odd is that? Really odd!
This is preposterous. The church already teaches things that many people do not believe. Additionally, the Church is attempting to force its religious morals on everyone else by coercing the government to keep marriage defined in a way the church wants.
Last Year Polling from Politico and George Washington University had shown a plurality of Americans saying they support gay marriage being legal. Even now among younger Republicans more are in agreement that their states should legalize gay marriage: those under 30, 51% say gay marriage should be legalized. Among the important groups Republicans need to attract to win elections, support for gay marriage is high. Hispanics 63-32, Young voters 62 - 30, college educated whites 59 - 32, and women 50 - 40. Democrats overwhelmingly believe gay marriage is a right. Now more Americans than not believe gay couples are being discriminated against.
What better time than now to make a move towards progressing on our treatment of gay individuals and their partners.
Opponents will attempt to use this nature argument now because polling is showing that the God argument has failed them. They point to flawed studies and ignore ones that prove they are wrong.
The vast majority of people base their decisions on gay marriage based on "gut feelings, religious beliefs, and individual experiences." Rosenfeld's research won't change everybody's mind about same-sex marriages. However, this is powerful proof that people need not worry about gay couples raising healthy children.
The law is not protecting children. If anything it is limiting loving parents from adopting children who need homes. Plus, as Clinton notes, we do not give gay couples the rights that marriage couples have.
Clinton wrote that “same-sex couples who are legally married in nine states and the District of Columbia are denied the benefits of more than a thousand federal statutes and programs available to other married couples. Among other things, these couples cannot file their taxes jointly, take unpaid leave to care for a sick or injured spouse or receive equal family health and pension benefits as federal civilian employees. Yet they pay taxes, contribute to their communities and, like all couples, aspire to live in committed, loving relationships, recognized and respected by our laws.”
Sure, we could offer gay couples rights without defining it as marriage, however that is not enough. We would be telling them they are different than us. They are not. They have the same victories and the same hardships as everyone else. The way our laws are written, gay individuals actually start out with a disadvantage. They have to worry about the public stigmas, family stigmas, and the government’s discriminative laws limiting their rights as Americans.
This is an injustice every bit as important as the civil rights movement. Gay couples are outraged and should be. You as an American should be outraged! You should be outraged at those who are not outraged. Americans like to believe the days for discrimination are a thing of the past, or at the very least infrequently happening. This is wrong.
Everyday wonderful people all over this nation are treated differently just because of who they love. As Americans, we should deem this unacceptable. The Supreme Court has the power to do this sometime in June. Let’s hope they get the message, America is ready.