Couple big things happened this past week regarding the issue of gay rights. First, North Carolina held a statewide vote to put it in their state charter that marriage is between a man and a woman (and as many on the internets have pointed out, that man and woman can be first cousins as long as they are a man and a woman). Here's the text of that amendment:
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.
The bill is meant to outlaw gay marriage at the state's constitutional level, but the following article from
Mother Jones highlights some problems the somewhat vague wording might present, as seen by the ACLU:
- Domestic violence laws protecting people in an unmarried partnerships might be weakened. (This claim has been debated by both sides, and it's still unclear exactly how the law would impact domestic violence victims. Opponents of Amendment 1 say many of North Carolina's domestic violence laws offer special protections to victims who have an established relationship with their abusers. So if the amendment narrows the law to legally recognize only marriages, it might weaken these protective laws for unmarried partners. Supporters of Amendment 1, such as Rockingham County District Attorney Phil Berger Jr., contest this claim. Berger said nothing in the amendment changes any laws on assault, rape, murder, or other crimes.)
- Unmarried parents could no longer have the same child custody and visitation rights as married parents.
- Private agreements between unmarried couples might not longer have a legal basis. This means, for example, that if a couple who has cohabited and raised children together for years decides to separate, the wealthier partner would not be legally obligated to divide property with his or her partner.
- The law could interfere with unmarried partners' end-of-life arrangements, such as wills, trusts, and medical powers of attorney.
- Employers would no longer have to provide benefits, such as health insurance, to the partners of unmarried employees.
I think things like this list highlight the problems with laws like North Carolina's marriage amendment. They can't be too specific in calling out their bias or else the courts could easily strike them down later, but their broadness opens potential unforeseen consequences. Maybe the list above is just the ACLU splitting hairs, but sometimes the law is like that. "We just wanted to discriminate against the gays, we didn't mean for it to affect anyone else" doesn't feel like a viable defense.
I feel like we've been here before with a state like North Carolina and its southern compatriots. I'm not sure why they have such a hard-on for legalizing discrimination and I'm curious what the next group will be since we already outlawed slavery at the federal level and I imagine someday we'll do the same to these same-sex marriage bans. We could probably figure it out if we wanted - sort of like Hitler publishing Mein Kampf - we just need to study the Bible hard enough to uncover the next target.
The second bit of business involved President Obama coming out in favor of same-sex marriage.
I feel like this is important for a number of reasons. First, obviously, he 's the president and he's saying this kind of stuff (right before a potentially close election no less). Mitt Romney has already done the red meat response so I guess this could be set up as a hot-button morality issue to galvanize certain voting bases.
For me, though, listening to him talk about how he's come around on this issue, it reminded me that we're all just people. Obama might be the president of the United States, but he also is a dad with two daughters, and friends of his daughters live in homes with same-sex parents. It's hard to keep railing against inequalities when you have a barbecue with the people you're affecting.
I feel lucky to live in a town that's welcoming to same-sex couples. I have two on my block (one with a daughter). Some of my son's classmates live in same-sex households. Same thing for my daughter. And when this issue comes up for a vote in New Jersey, it will be easy to vote in favor of recognizing that the rights of my neighbors are the same as my own. I would have done it anyway, but doing it with the two incredibly kind couples across the street in mind makes it a no-brainer.
Beyond that, I feel Obama's public stance ends the silly civil union for some but marriage for others tap dance that politicians endure when they simply want to acknowledge discriminating against same-sex couples is wrong. Opposing same-sex marriage is a waning trend, and I think Obama's support for same-sex marriage makes it a lot easier for normal people sitting in the middle of the spectrum to admit they feel everyone should get equal treatment and that this whole debate, from a public policy standpoint, is stupid.
But here's an interesting sidenote from the following
Five Thirty Eight post:
Here's the quote:
It should be remembered that support for same-sex marriage in polls has not necessarily translated into support at the ballot booth. On Tuesday, North Carolina became the latest state to adopt a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and did so by a margin of about 20 percentage points, somewhat larger than polls forecast. The North Carolina measure also banned domestic partnerships and other types of civil unions.
Still, even if polls have sometimes overstated support for same-sex marriage, and if some of the Americans who support same-sex marriage are less likely to turn out to vote than those who oppose it, the issue now seems to have a bit of wiggle room, with supporters slightly outnumbering opponents in recent national surveys.
The North Carolina amendment passed by a much larger margin than it should have given how polls trended on the issue. On a larger playing field, however, the real battle is for moderates and I feel that Obama's stance helps him more than it hurts him with that group. Here's hoping they head out to the polls when the time comes.
If I were a moderate, I'd be sick and tired of having my voice co-opted by the extremities on either side.
