Analysis: Gay Marriage and the US Constitution
December 24, 2009 by Gay Agenda News Team
Within this decade, a major step to equality has occurred in much of the world. Same sex marriage is now allowed in Canada and most nations in Western Europe. In 2008, two state supreme courts, in California and Connecticut, held that gays and lesbians have the right to marry. They joined Massachusetts as the first states in this country to provide for marriage equality. Until California voters amended the California Constitution in November to outlaw same sex marriage, over one in eight people in the United States lived in a state where same sex marriage was allowed.
Why does this matter? Most studies estimate that about one tenth of the population is gay. Laws in every state traditionally have provided enormous benefits to married couples that were unavailable to others.
The few states, along with the City of Washington, DC, which allow same-sex marriages only do so because in those jurisdictions it is extremely difficult to put an issue on the ballot to overturn a legislative or judicial decision. Same-sex marriage victories in those jurisdictions do not present a broader winning strategy.
Clearly, in states where same-sex marriage must face the voters a different strategy must be developed in order to succeed. Attaining comprehensive domestic partnerships first, which has rarely failed and just won state-wide in Washington state, is the logical strategy to adopt. Unfortunately, many same-sex marriage activists cannot distinguish between a goal and a strategy. Their goal is one, unified category of marital rights for both heterosexuals and same-sex couples. However, many falsely believe that the only strategy for attaining equality is for same-sex couples to immediately have access to marriage. Unfortunately, demanding immediate relief has failed, 33 election losses and no wins.
The original long term strategy for achieving marital rights was to create a parallel and legally equal category, domestic partnerships. Eventually people would say, “It is stupid having two categories doing the same thing. Let’s combine them.” No tears, just a housekeeping measure. Much less flashy than the current marriage-only strategy but it was working. More important, comparing the trajectory domestic partnerships was on when the strategy was halted with the continuous defeats and heartache the marriage-only strategy has given us, it is clear that the domestic partnership strategy would have brought us to one, unified category of marital rights for both heterosexuals and LGBT folk much, much sooner. Clearly, to achieve marriage equality sooner rather than later, that is the strategy we should adopt.