The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday and Wednesday on two laws concerning gay marriage. The first was California’s Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state, and the second was the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits federal benefits of marriages to heterosexual couples. The court’s decisions, which will likely be released in June, have the potential to either completely overturn all laws banning gay marriage, to strike down only one or both of the laws at issue or to leave both laws intact and the decision about gay marriage up to the states.
A cursory glance at the state of public opinion on the issue shows a fairly even divide. But a deeper look at the issue reveals that gay marriage will soon be the will of the people. Not only do young people of both parties overwhelmingly support gay marriage, but people are becoming more open-minded as they realize people they care about are gay — as in the case of Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who switched sides in the gay-marriage debate after his son came out as gay. Same-sex marriage will not be an issue like abortion that lingers as a controversy for decades after a Supreme Court decision. The court could effectively eliminate years and decades of controversy by making a decision that reflects the inevitable outcome of the debate, and in doing so will ensure immediate justice for those to whom the state is currently denying rights.
Is affirming gay marriage a decision the court can’t afford to make politically? Will conservatives make too big of a fuss for the right-leaning judges to ignore? The answer to both questions is no. Gay marriage is no longer a fundamentally political issue. Less than a year ago some considered it radical that President Barack Obama announced his support of gay marriage during his campaign. Now dozens of Republicans, Portman and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman among them, have thrown their weight behind gay marriage and urged the court to rule against Prop 8 and DOMA. This trend does not reflect a shift by either party. Instead, it is indicative of the fact that savvy politicians are realizing that opposition to same-sex marriage is, quite literally, dying. The people from both parties who will be voting in the elections of the coming decades support gay marriage. The population that is overwhelmingly against the idea are the elderly, and while they may currently even out the scales, every year tips the balance further. The justices of the Supreme Court would not be condemning either political party by making a decision in favor of equal rights.
On a purely legal level, there is not a single compelling reason to uphold either Prop 8 or DOMA. A common argument against same-sex marriage is that it provides a different set of rules for a select population. But any analysis of this claim shows it to be not only misleading but antithetical to the truth. Gay marriage would only be a “special” right if they would gain something desirable to the entire population that would not be available to others. If that were the case, gay marriage would not be legally sound. But same-sex couples are asking for the complete opposite — they don’t want “special” rights, they want the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples. We can’t decide what race we are, what sex we are, or what sexual orientation we are. None of these factors can be a valid limitation for access to marriage, a fundamental right to which all adults are entitled. The only criteria necessary for a couple to be married should be that they are consenting adults capable of making informed decisions for themselves — a criteria that applies universally and equally to people of any gender or orientation.
Nicolle Wallace, a former advisor to President George W. Bush, has made an additional argument against gay marriage, recently telling Fox News: “There’s also a moral imperative here. If you believe, if you value and treasure and revere the institution of marriage, then you should want every family unit to be really wrapped in marriage.” I must admit, I had to read this quote several times before I realized that Wallace disagreed with me on same-sex marriage. I personally think the above quote is a powerful argument for gay marriage. Regardless of laws banning same-sex couples from marrying, people who love each other are going to live together and form families. The institution of marriage is a structure that strengthens and empowers the family unit and therefore benefits society. I do think it’s a “moral imperative” to “want every family unit to be really wrapped in marriage.” And that means granting equal rights to the same sex couples and families who just want their relationships to be recognized as legitimate by the state. I hope the Supreme Court’s decision reflects this imperative.
Forrest Brown is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. Contact him at f.brown@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
HARBATH: Compulsory attendance policies are harmful to students
By Julie Harbath | 19 hours agoBy permitting a return to antiquated, inflexible attendance policies, the University is jeopardizing student health and wellness.
ARRAS: The cavalier tendency to say “I do”
By Aoife Arras | 5 days agoIn continually promoting marriage-mindedness, the University and student organizations actually undermine the educational mission of this institution.
VAN DE SOMPEL: “Rules are Rules”
By Mo Van de Sompel | May 27, 2024In reality, rules are contextual, and enforcement is selective.
