Let the states decide
In the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, argued last week, the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to declare same-sex marriage a right in all 50 states. It should not.
Twice, same-sex marriage has been on the ballot in Washington state — in 2009 for the substance and in 2012 for the name — and twice I voted for it. I'm still for it, but I'm for the states deciding it on their own time.
Next door to Washington is Idaho. In 2006, 63 percent of Idaho voters voted to limit marriage to a man and a woman. In 2004, 57 percent of Oregon voters did the same. In 2007 its Legislature passed a civil-union law.
Three states, three answers, although none is necessarily a permanent answer.
In uber-progressive Seattle, same-sex marriage feels like a constitutional right already, which makes it easy for people there to urge the Supreme Court to proclaim it one. And that would erase the votes of Idaho and Oregon.
Really it would erase the votes of Washington as well, both in the Legislature and by the people. Such a ruling would declare that same-sex marriage was never any of the states' business, that, as one of the legal briefs says, “the issue was taken out of the People's hands in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified.”
And that's not believable. The aim of the 14th Amendment was to protect black Americans. Race is a special issue in American history; we fought a war over it and enacted four constitutional amendments about it — the 13th, 14th, 15th and 24th. The 14th Amendment's phrase “equal protection of the laws” is not limited to race, and the Supreme Court has used it liberally. But when one clause is stretched so far, it swallows up other things — in this case the legitimate rights of the states.
Same-sex marriage is not in America's founding documents. It fits with their spirit, but is still a new thing. It has been a mainstream issue for only 20 years, since a ruling in 1993 by the Supreme Court of Hawaii.
The first state to adopt it and keep it was Massachusetts in 2003. Ten states now have civil unions and nine others have full marriage. Only Maine, Maryland and Washington have adopted full marriage by a vote of the people.
Our Democrat president came out for same-sex marriage on May 9, 2012. Before that, President Obama was for civil unions but not marriage, a position his Justice Department now argues is unconstitutional.
By the original meaning of the Constitution, it is the federal redefinition of marriage that's unconstitutional. Under the 10th Amendment, the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton in 1996, is unconstitutional. Expanding marriage is up to the states.
And for almost 20 years, the campaign for gay marriage argued exactly that. Let the liberal states run ahead. And they have.
America is still divided. In the West, every Obama state in 2012 but one, New Mexico, has at least civil unions, and no Romney state has them.
But opinion is moving in all the states, and in the same way. Same-sex marriage now has huge majorities among the young, and it is clearly going to win.
The court should let it play out.
Bruce Ramsey is a columnist for The Seattle Times.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- More than just mums in Connellsville
- Reforming immigration: Raise the bar
- Saturday essay: Seeding next year
- State of Corruption: Jim Short’s plea
- U.N. Watch: More propaganda
- The Iranian deal: Mortal blessings
- Fresh produce solution
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- The DHS crackdown
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances