CLAMP Campus Adventures

I try to not be too political here. But I can’t let this pass. Many of you know the facts about this, but I’m going to state them anyway.

A few months ago, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ruled the state has 180 days (which are up in May 2004) to implement the ability for gays to marry under state law. This was a ruling of the commonwealth’s constitution which does state there are equal rights and makes the marriage a civic, not religious institution which has benefits in tax law, common law, and protection laws to the family and children involved. The constitution does not state marriage is specifically between a man and a woman. Some states have put this into their constitutions, Massachusetts has not.

This caused an uproar. The religious right states this will ruin the institution of marriage, which is most definitely religious in nature. They forget there are civic benefits (and some disadvantages) to this institution. They forget religion and state are supposed to be separate based on what the founding fathers have written. Note: The U.S. constitution guarantees the FREEDOM of religion, but does not specifically separate out religion from the government. The separation of church and state can be found in various other treatises written by our founding fathers (Madison, Adams, etc), however. Not even the liberal Democrats were convinced this was a good idea. After all, it goes against their beliefs, and many (if not most) Massachusetts Democrats are good Christians who believe gays should not have the right to marry because it violates their religious beliefs. Are you sensing a pattern here?

The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let’s take religion out of this equation and leave simple legal facts. Marriage is an institution which joins a couple into a state called matrimony. This state allows them to legally change their names without paying fees. It allows them to file taxes differently. It gives one spouse the right to make health decisions for another if he or she becomes unable to do so. It gives them rights after death when children have entered the equation. It offers the idea stability into both parties lives. It is, in effect, a legal contract between two people to join their lives and finances together. Nothing more, nothing less. You can walk into a courthouse, meet with someone, sign some papers in front of witnesses, and boom, that’s it. It’s probably the only contract you can enter into in Massachusetts allows for a verbal contract to be legal and binding (vows), although it’s possible you could even get married without stating vows. In order to break this contract, you have to prove it was not entered into with the true consent of all parties (annulment) or you must go to court to break the contract (divorce). Under equal rights for all (note the word all here does not separate by race, color, religion or SEX), it doesn’t matter what sex, race, religion or whatever these two people are as long as they can legally enter contracts in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Fast forward to yesterday. In order to circumvent the ruling of the SJC (and probably to preserve their political lives), members of the Massachusetts legislature asked the SJC if a Vermont-like “Civil Union” was an acceptable substitution to the term marriage. The problem with civil unions is it is a different contract than marriage. It is not recognized as the same contract, so the SJC said absolutely not. This upset some people.

Already there was talk of introducing the express status of marriage being between a man and a woman into the Massachusetts constitution, which can be voted on in the year 2006 by all peoples registered to vote in the commonwealth. The legislature will decide whether or not to do this next week. It will probably pass, and not because all voting for it are against gay marriage either and I admire those people’s logic. They feel this issue should be decided BY the PEOPLE FOR the PEOPLE (sound familiar?). They want the democratic process to work for this one and it will settle the issue for Massachusetts once and for all. I admire this. I certainly have nothing against those voting for the 2006 vote for this reason. It’s a good reason. There’s also the fact in 2006, 2 years from now, gay marriage will have 2 years of practice under its belt and shouldn’t be a hot button issue for open-minded Massachusetts citizens (and I have to believe the majority are open-minded).

In the United States constitution there are several things that should be noted:

Article IV Section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Article IV Section 2: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States…

What does this mean? Well, it means that states other than Massachusetts may need to also implement gay marriage. What I predict will happen is as follows:

1. A state that has specifically stated that a marriage between a man & a woman has a couple move in from Massachusetts who have been legally and lawfully married.
2. The couple then applies for all their rights under the new state and is therefore denied as applicable to the new state’s law.
3. The couple sues the state for their full rights.
4. The case goes to the U.S. Supreme Court who will make a decision if they decide to even hear the case (I can’t imagine they wouldn’t).
5. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision will either strike down or affirm Massachusett’s decision and gay marriage will be either legal throughout the U.S. or illegal throughout the U.S. since other states will be required to honor Massachusett’s contract law.

What do we have now? A hot topic for the 2004 Presidential Election. Why? Because it’s highly likely that the Democratic nominee will be from Massachusetts. It’s not for sure, yet, but you can bet that the Republican analysts have their eyes set on Kerry. Oh, and get this, the Democratic National Convention is going to be held in Boston, Massachusetts this year. Oh yeah, and this is an issue of national importance. Republican President George W. Bush said the following yesterday:

“Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman.”
“If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.”

Mr. Bush suggests that this is an issue that should be included in the United States Consititution. Let’s have a little history lesson.

Back in the 1860’s the southern states of the United States were a little upset that another president, Abraham Lincoln by name, banned slavery throughout the union. They said this act interfered with their right of free trade and to determine policy for themselves, so they decided to leave the union. There was a really big war, and the northern states won, so the southern states are still a part of the union. This was because the emancipation of slaves was placed into the U.S. Constitution which is by its own definition the supreme law of the land.

Mr. Bush suggests that once again, the government override state rights of developing their own contract law, and wants to shove federal policy down their throats by adopting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly defining who may enter into a contract. This will piss off the states. States rights has been a hot button issue since the Revolutionary War came to an end and we were working under the Articles of Confederation.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution states the following:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The key phrase there is “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate”. Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution has a huge list of things that Congress is allowed to do. I’m not listing them here, but you can be assured that what they are not allowed to do is to override laws that are single state issues. They are allowed to control commerce and interstate trade as well as dictate foreign policy.

To introduce such a constitutional amendment would be heinous and deprive many U.S. citizens of their rights and freedoms as a people, just because they happen to prefer the same sex. Mostly because their religious upbringing says that this contract should be exclusive.

My favorite argument is how the allowance of gay marriage will undermine the institution. Actually, it would do the exact opposite as it will allow more contracts to be created and offer more family stability for all families in the United States no matter what their race, religion, or sexual preference is.

By the way, I highly recommend this site if you’re interested in reading some historical documents about the founding of this country.

I also recommend readers living in New Hampshire write to their local senator on their opinion on this issue prior to the vote in that state by the legislature to introduce the words “between a man and a woman” into their state law about marriage. This vote will be occurring on February 17, 2004. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, “Senate Bill 427, sponsored by Sen. Russell Prescott, R-Kingston, would also bar the state from recognizing marriages performed in another state that did not meet New Hampshire’s criteria.”