Gay Marriage Gains Momentum in U.S.

The election of the first African-American President has brought 'a civil rights state of mind' to America

By Charles Lewis, National Post

A sense of momentum among gay rights activists and the election of a liberal African-American president have combined to push more states to adopt pro same-sex marriage laws in the past year.

Three states — Iowa, Vermont and Maine — have made same-sex marriage legal in the past few months and New York and New Hampshire are on the verge of doing the same.

In fact, John Lynch, Governor of New Hampshire and a longtime opponent of gay marriage, said on Wednesday he would not veto a pro-gay-marriage bill that just passed the state legislature.

Massachusetts was the first U.S. state to make it legal, in 2003, and Connecticut followed suit last year.

Solon Simmons, a professor at the Institute for Conflict Analysis & Resolution at George Mason University in Washington, D.C., said the events in the mainly socially liberal New England states have been building for years.

“But there is reason to suspect that we are living through a political opportunity for those who support gay marriage as a civil rights issue,” Prof. Simmons said.

“There is the standard consideration like having [Democratic] political control of the executive and legislative branches, but also it is a time when the gains of the civil rights movement are on people’s minds. In the early days of the first mixed-race presidency, many people are likely to be in a civil rights state of mind, and this could work to the advantage of the gay rights activists.”

Indeed, many supporters of gay marriage rights say their cause is similar to the civil rights battles for African-Americans in the 1960s.

When same-sex marriage became legal this year in Iowa — a state not known for overt social liberalism — it gave activists inspiration to push even harder, said David Masci, senior research fellow for the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in Washington.

“There is a sense of momentum that proponents of same-sex marriage feel. When you speak to them, you really do a get a sense that this is a train that has left the station and will not be stopped. That’s pushing a lot of this action.”

One group intent on keeping marriage strictly for heterosexuals, the National Organization for Marriage, is so concerned about the spread of gay marital rights, it has produced a television ad.

This shows concerned citizens, standing in front of a threatening sky, saying: “There’s a storm gathering;” “The clouds are dark and the winds are stormy;” “And I am afraid.”

One of its main points is that enshrining gay marriage in law will mean those opposed to the idea on moral grounds could feel the wrath of the state.

Even those less inclined to theatrical hyperbole agree the issue of the rights of religious-based organizations will become a legal question.

Three years ago in Boston, the Roman Catholic adoption agency was told it would lose its licence if it did not deal with gay couples. In response, the Church left the adoption business.

Mr. Masci said the courts would likely find themselves dealing with wedding photographers and catering halls that did not want to cater to gay marriages.

However, many opponents say that they are not expecting a wave to sweep the country.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act does not recognize same-sex marriages and allows states to refuse to recognize gay marriages from other states. In addition, 29 states have constitutional amendments that forbid gay marriage, and last November, California, Florida and Arizona defeated calls for legalizing gay marriage in referendums.

“What we are seeing is various attempts to introduce same-sex unions at the level of judiciary or legislature, but at the same time we’re also seeing the response of a populace, that when it’s put to a popular vote there is support for traditional marriage,” said Father Brian Bransfield of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

California is a case in point. The legislature has approved gay marriage twice, but this has been vetoed by the Governor both times.Then, in 2008, after the California Supreme Court ruled gay marriage was protected by the constitution, 18,000 gay couples rushed to tie the knot.

But in November, the court decision was overturned in the referendum. (Gay marriage proponents are now arguing their case against the referendum’s outcome. There have been indications the court will uphold the referendum, but will allow those who married to keep their legal status.)

Fr. Bransfield dismissed the civil rights argument because marriage transcends the power of courts or governments to expand the meaning of this union.

“Marriage, the union of one man and one woman is the most recognizable institution in time and space. It’s an utterly unique kind of union. Other relationships don’t approach that at all. That comes from nature. Marriage existed long before the state and the judiciary,” he said.

“The state can’t change the definition of marriage because it is not a label. It’s a reality. If marriage becomes so broad that anything can be marriage, nothing is marriage.”

However, he believes the state does have a role to protect traditional marriage.

“The state has an interest in preserving those things essential for the common good and there is something about the common good that is advanced in the male-female union. It has an immediate impact on family.”

Brian Moulton, senior counsel for the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington-based gay rights group, said there cannot be a society in which one group is given second-class status.

“Equal protection is supposed to mean it for all people. Treating loving couples in a different way is problematic under our Constitution.”

He also rejected the idea that citizens’ rights should be subject to referendums.

“We don’t believe any fundamental right should be subject to popular approval.”

National Post
clewis@nationalpost.com

Posted by: Hanna W.