The Politics of the Gay Marriage Issue
K.G. MacKinaw
Some rights reserved by roberthuffstutterGood Morning America,
I woke yesterday morning to find via my number one newsource, Facebook, that the voters of North Carolina have chosen to amend their constitution with their first ever amendment. This amendment, known as Amendment I, specifically bans gay marriage and civil unions. And so the voters have spoken. The New York Times then told me, “Gay Marriage Issue Looming, Obama sits for an Interview.” In no time flat, President Obama made that interview and wrote a new political chapter on the issue by stating that he supports marriage equality. One day, one small moment.
Biden and Obama are the bookends on this tomb of gay marriage literature. The fat pulp non-fiction in the middle is the North Carolina vote. Gay marriage was already illegal in North Carolina. This amendment went further to make it unconstitutional for gays to marry or have a civil union. I am not sure if heterosexual people can civil union. Nor can I explore that subject further because I can’t waste more time digging into the extent to which this amendment limits rights. I’m sure the power of the people will rout it out for all the citizens of North Carolina, gay and straight.
I am far more interested in the sequence of events that led to this new position. First Vice President Joe Biden recently gave an interview response saying that he supports gay marriage. Then came The Times’ prioritizing of their own article (and the topic therein) that the President will now be making some sort of position statement, and finally came the climactic moment of the statement President Obama actually made.
What interests me is the culminating power of gay marriage as a political touch point, a subject that has been bubbling along in the psyches not only of the voters of North Carolina, but in the minds of Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama, all the other presidential candidates, and states across the union. I am buffaloed at how the power to grant or limit rights, and the manipulation of social issues can polarize and activate voters.
I am not a history major. At best, I have a shaky knowledge of the goings-on of those who came before me. My memory of facts can be questioned, and often is, usually by me. I do, however, have an excellent memory for the feelings and the gist of the world. So it was no surprise when I double checked that the Bill of Rights does indeed grant rights, as I was pretty sure it did. The Constitution created, as one website put it, “the machinery for establishing an effective federal government.” The amendments came along to grant the power back to the individual. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a December 1787 letter to Madison that “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.” The power of all those amendments, together known as the Bill of Rights then, was to grant power to the people in the face of a powerful and potentially oppressive government.
At the end of our founders' debate over Federalism, what we see is an essential document protecting the individual and the backbone of the nation. The power behind the Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and each and every Amendment thereafter is meant to protect the people from tyrannical government.
So after the announcement of Obama’s scheduled interview, but before the interview itself, I was distressed that the granting and protecting of rights should become such a trigger point for the people of our country. I was distressed when allowing people to move freely through difficult and sometimes painful lives becomes a point of contention. When our answer to a citizen's “May I?” becomes “no” more than “yes,” I am tired and worn out. Yet when corporations are treated as people, we shy away from enacting limiting rules and laws against them. I believe that people should be granted as many rights as any corporate entity and then some, and that those rights should be protected, as much as can be done so reasonably.
Why has such a subject become the topic de jour for our political elect? Why is the gay marriage rising to the top of the ballot box for amendments and laws? What magic power does it have over us? Reuters recently released poll results suggesting that nearly half of American’s support gay marriage (I think it was 47% to 42%), so where is the steam for this engine?
Gay marriage is the trojan horse. It is invading our political world. It is the red herring of real topics. I believe that President Obama stepped up and called the red herring what it is. By proclaiming crisply where he stood on the issue, I believe he made it a non-issue. Oh, for sure there will be kicking and squalling, but it will no longer be the point of debate; it simply is. Gay marriage simply will happen, like it or not, because freedom is an intrinsic American right and once a civil rights war is begun, it does not end until the rights are made right. Yes, the journeys are long and bathed in blood, but they only move forward. Yes, we still fight for equality of race every day and of gender every day. We fight the discrimination of ageism and the oprression of creed and religion. With these struggles little by little we grow our arms wide enough to embrace the true face of America.
So in this election year, let's recognize America for what it actually is, and stop playing games about what it is not.
I, for one, wish that I could open my Facebook and find my ridiculous friends talking more about how we will feed the people, or really revive the economy, or save polar bears, or lower gas prices, or get free electric cars for everyone or stop childhood obesity or help our society love and include the elderly or end multiple sclerosis or anything that really matters. I wish the topic of gay marriage could vanish from the papers, because it was a given, that in America all people are equal, men and women, little children and old people, whatever their shape or creed or color.
That is my wish for you, Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney, Mr. and Ms. Voters of America. I wish that you could quit worrying about how to limit our rights and instead could worry about finding our freedoms, freedoms that dwell within each and every one of us, freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom from oppression.
Best of luck to you on your pursuit of life, liberty and happiness in whatever form that may take.
Much Love,
An American
Reader Comments (2)
"I was distressed that the granting and protecting of rights should become such a trigger point for the people of our country. I was distressed when allowing people to move freely through difficult and sometimes painful lives becomes a point of contention."
This was a strong line that unfolds your argument like a dinner napkin. When did we stop thinking that individuals should have control over their personal and community decisions. When North Carolina speaks, the individuals of North Carolina are disbanded for uniform voice. Their legislature looks tyrranical and insensitive and all we can do is shake our heads in disbelief that educated people, born in a country set on freedoms, would deny action that has nothing to do with safety or public good.
When the President said this will not stand, he speaks for all of us who believes that individual's well being and happiness is not an impediment to good government, but a compass to guide our government's decisions. We should always be looking at giving the American people more freedoms and not limiting our relationships.
Whether you believe in gay marriage or not, it is not for state, country, or neighbor to decide for you. I am glad you made this point evident.
Thanks for the lunch and welcome.
But in practical terms, what is the result of the Obama administration's well-coordinated PR campaign? The president is only now articulating a view that he likely has had for a long time judging by his positions on DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He just waited until an election year to announce it, but will he push for any laws to be introduced to protect gay marriage? Will a constitutional amendment be passed? The answer is no.
This whole issue is just to fire up the bases of each party, but words do not equate into action. When you look beyond the words of the two candidates, they both seem intent on the same course of action. Obama says his personal position on gay marriage has evolved, but he won't make repealing DOMA a part of his platform. The Republican candidate intends to do pretty much the same thing, but spins his words differently. Romney argues for full equality for gays and lesbians, but he doesn't want to call civil unions marriages. So other than semantics, what's the difference in policy? Neither Obama or Romney seem prepared to actually advocate for change.
I like how you referenced the founding fathers and the federalist debate, because this age old battle between government power and individual rights continues to play out in the present day. Call me cynical, but I don't think that any of the presidential candidates really care about broadening civil rights for gay and lesbian couples, or vice versa defending traditional marriage. I think they are primarily concerned with attaining more power for themselves. The aspiring tyrants in our government love playing this game of pretending that it is they who grant some people rights, and deny them to others. This is not only false, but it creates enough division to distract citizens from seeing government's actual failings. Obama and his ilk know that if we really looked into what the government was doing (Operation Fast and Furious just to name one), they would get thrown out of office real quick. In reality, all rights come from a higher power as outlined by our founding fathers, and any government who pretends to want to impose this divine will on the masses likely has the ulterior motive of manipulating the debate consolidating power for themselves.
Finally, let's not dance around the underlying issue here: religion. How can two presidential candidates both claiming to be Christians come down on opposite sides of this issue when historically Christianity has opposed gay marriage? Oh wait, it's because different people can interpret the same religion in different ways. Compare Joseph Smith vs. Jeremiah Wright. Should one man's religious interpretation be sanctioned by government while the others is not? Clearly no. Well, can't we have the religious majority impose their view on the minority? Also no. The protection of the rights of the political minority was clearly precious to our founding father's based on our system of checks and balances.
So what's the answer: Government stay out of it! Let grown men and women choose what they want to do with their lives as long as they aren't negatively impacting others. Whether they choose good or evil, paper or plastic, side salad or fries, let them reap the natural consequences of their actions. How about Obama and Romney focus on paying off the $15 trillion in debt owed by the taxpayers or at least fix some potholes instead of exalting themselves in the illusion of their power to grant rights that were never theirs to give.
Anyway, that's my rant. Thanks for the post and the perspective.