There has been a veritable media blitz surrounding the recent hearing in the United States Supreme Court of the Hollingsworth v. Perry (previously Perry v. Brown) case involving the California Proposition 8 concerning marriage. The concept of enlarging the parameters
There has been a veritable media blitz surrounding the recent hearing in the United States Supreme Court of the Hollingsworth v. Perry (previously Perry v. Brown) case involving the California Proposition 8 concerning marriage. The concept of enlarging the parameters of matrimony to include same-sex partners is an emotion laden and complex issue. As is often the case some history may be helpful.
Early on the commencing of marriage in areas where Judean-Christian cultures prevailed has been a religious rite without state involvement. This status long antedated the establishment of our country. In the beginning stages of our nation, government involvement as to marriage was mostly limited to licensing and the establishment by the various states of the minimum age permissible.
However, in the last century there has been enactment by the federal government of income and estate taxes, similar taxes by the states and entitlement programs, which offered substantial benefits to those considered married. These governmental changes have created an economic incentive for the marital status and has necessitated a rethinking of its position as a religious institution.
Gay and lesbians have always been with us as a small percentage of our population, but their existence has been much more evident in recent years as they are increasingly coming “out of the closet.” Their status deserves compassionate consideration, being a minority somewhat akin to left-handers trying to get along in a right-handed world.
At the Supreme Court hearing supporters of gay marriage were carrying placards saying that love is all that matters. But it is not that simple. When people say that money does not matter — it is the principle of the thing — it is usually the case that money does matter.
It is well worth noting that governments, both federal and state, created the conditions that made a marital state of economic benefit. When government conformed to the religious criteria and defined marriage to exclude same sex partners it de facto discriminated against them. The notion that cohabiting adults should receive equivalent treatment is a reasonable one.
But it is also difficult to ignore that marriages arising from religious rituals have formed the families that comprise the bulk of our society. Perhaps part of the problem is semantic. The same term “marriage” is used to identify the product of a religious ceremony and a civil union formed under our laws and it is troublesome for some to accept that the term should be used to include relationships that are considered sacrilegious.
There is also the complication as to the boundaries to marriage that gay activists are proposing. When they contend that marriage should include any relationship where there is love do they mean that they will reject the traditional criteria as to age, consanguinity and number that are applied currently in traditional unions. Or do they seek, for example, recognition of marriage for two sisters? Or polygamy? These questions have not been answered.
The Hollingsworth case also involves the questions whether marriage is a status that may or should be regulated by the federal government and involves consideration of the rather anomalous 1996 federal enactment of the Defense of Marriage law.
Public opinion polls suggest that “gay marriage” has increasing support with just over half of our citizens now saying they would approve of it. I believe it to be intriguing that as the public is moving toward acceptance of gay marriage, polls are also showing that abortion on demand, the spawn of the last major Supreme Court decision of a broad social issue, Roe v. Wade, has lost majority support.
With some outstanding exceptions, my comfort level with our elected officials is not high, but I do not believe our nation is well placed when nine unelected people are called upon to determine social policy. It may well be that our existing laws discriminate unjustly against same sex unions, but I believe it better for our legislatures to change the laws that discriminate improperly, than to afford the Supreme Court an unwise opportunity to create what would become regarded as a new federal right.
As always it is foolish to try to predict a result from the Supreme Court, particularly when the issues are mainly social in nature, so we will just have to wait until the expected decision time in June to learn what the justices will have in store for us.
• Walter Lewis is a resident of Princeville and writes a biweekly column for The Garden Island.
