|
|
From: newsandviews_list@chuckmuth.com
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2004 11:31 AM
To: newsandviews@chuckmuth.com
Subject: MUTH'S TRUTHS: "The Day After Tomorrow Hysteria"
THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW HYSTERIA
By Chuck Muth
May 16, 2004
Barring some last-minute hocus-pocus, gays will, for the first time ever, be
able to legally marry in the United States starting tomorrow. Opponents of
same-sex marriage have come to refer to this rendezvous with history as
“Destruction of Marriage Day.” But much like the Hollywood global warming
disaster flick “The Day After Tomorrow” (which hits air-conditioned theaters
near you next weekend), such hysteria makes for great fundraising copy, but
hardly reflects reality.
The thing is, there may be good, compelling, legitimate arguments for passing a
Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to prohibit Massachusetts from doing what
Massachusetts is likely to do tomorrow. But if so, we’re still waiting to hear
them. Instead, all we’re getting are barbarians-at-the-gate hysteria, gross
exaggerations, changes of subject and - I hate to say it - outright lies. Such
arguments are destined to fall under their own weight in the long term,
regardless of their “popularity” in the present day.
Here, I’ll give you some examples...
These come from arguments made this week by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), the
driving force behind the FMA in the House. Far more outlandish examples by
various opponents, including some religious activists, are out there but let’s
just stick with the leader of the band for now.
Let’s start here: In a taped message for the Free Congress Foundation released
this week, Musgrave stated: “For the first time in America’s history homosexual
couples will be allowed to legally marry as the result of the usurping of power
by a handful of judges in the Massachusetts Supreme Court who ruled that
traditional marriage is unconstitutional.”
Now, you may well be against same-sex marriage every bit as much as the
congresswoman, but if you have ANY sense of intellectual integrity whatsoever
you can’t help but acknowledge that that statement is flat out false, plain and
simple. The Supremes did NOT rule that traditional marriage is unconstitutional.
The day after tomorrow, hundreds and thousands of “traditional” marriages will
continue to legally take place. I mean, this point isn’t even debatable.
Why would a United States congresswoman say something so blatantly and obviously
untrue? Again, there may be plenty of legitimate and truthful things one could
say about the Massachusetts decision to express opposition to it. This, however,
is certainly not one of them. So why do it?
Now let’s move on to Rep. Musgrave’s testimony before the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on the Constitution this past Thursday. Ah, where to begin. Well,
let’s just move through her opening statement in order of presentation.
Rep. Musgrave informed the committee that she does not “lightly propose”
amending our Constitution; rather, she is proposing to do so “only as a last
resort.” I suppose that must depend on your definition of “last resort.”
Here’s the bottom line on this point. Once same-sex marriages take place in
Massachusetts, some gay couples are going to move to or return to other states
and request that those states, which currently do not allow same-sex marriages,
officially recognize their Massachusetts-sanctioned marriage, invoking the Full
Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution. It’s going to happen, make no
mistake. What’s not so clear, however, is how these challenges will be settled.
First, an impressive body of legal scholars have made the case that the FF&C
clause does not and will not apply to marriages. Secondly, Congress passed the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) way back in 1996 which specifically says that one
state does not have to recognize the same-sex marriages performed in another
state.
Two points here: (1) DOMA has yet to be successfully challenged in court, and
(2) Congress already has the authority under the existing Constitution to strip
the federal courts of any jurisdiction to even hear a challenge against DOMA.
Protecting states’ rights with regard to same-sex marriage can be passed by
simple majorities in the House and Senate.
So Rep. Musgrave’s contention that her federal marriage amendment is a “last
resort” option is, once again, flat out false, plain and simple.
Rep. Musgrave also makes a number of biblical arguments in her statement;
however, we’re talking about our government and the Constitution here, so they
simply aren’t germane to this discussion. They ARE germane to a discussion on
whether or not one’s CHURCH should recognize same-sex marriages; however,
Congress is not a church, the Constitution is not the Bible and the United
States is a republic, not a theocracy. So let’s move on.
Rep. Musgrave also stated for the record: “I have introduced the FMA to stop
this judicial activism and preserve the right of self-determination for the
American people…” She goes on to claim that FMA would not “nationalize marriage
law” and maintained that “no one is a stronger supporter of the principles of
federalism.”
OK, I’m opposed to judicial activism, too, though a legitimate debate can be had
over whether or not the Massachusetts court decision was, in fact, an example of
judicial activism. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the FMA doesn’t ban
judicial activism in all its ugly forms; it only bans gay marriage. Why? If
judicial activism is such a major problem, why only address it in this one,
narrow instance? Some might look at this and suggest there’s some kind of bias
or phobia at work (perish the thought!)..
Now to the crucial issue of states’ rights (I know, for all you purists out
there, that individuals, not states, have rights, but just accept the context
here, OK?). Rep. Musgrave contends that a national ban on same-sex marriages
would not “nationalize marriage law.” That she said this with a straight (pardon
the pun) face is commendable.
The undeniable fact is, if FMA passes, no state, regardless of what its people
or legislature decides, will be allowed to allow same-sex marriages. No state.
So even if cash-strapped Californians change their minds and decide to sanction
same-sex civil marriages in order to enjoy the financial windfall which would
surely follow, they would be banned from doing so.
How does that “preserve the right of self-determination”? How does that support
“the principles of federalism”? Sorry, congresswoman, but by your own words I
have to say that there are a LOT of conservatives who are stronger supporters of
“the principles of federalism” than yourself.
Next on the chopping block? Rep. Musgrave goes on to suggest that “the primary
function of marriage has always been to provide a legal context for procreation
and child rearing by fathers and mothers.” I’ve heard this argument quite often
and it is one of the weakest arguments out there. I can’t even begin to imagine
why FMA supporters continue to make it.
First, if the only purpose of marriage is to have children, then there are a
whole lot of “straight” marriages which need to be dissolved...including the
second marriages of both my parents. And what about infertile couples who simply
cannot have children? Are we to deny them the ability to marry? What about
straight couples who CHOOSE not to have children? Should the government deny
them the ability to get married...or COMPEL them to have children?
As for gays raising children, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: There
are a TON of straight married couples who shouldn’t be allowed within a country
mile of a child. This isn’t about gay or straight; it’s about whether or not
kids can successfully be raised in a particular household. Sure, kids raised by
gay parents are going to have certain challenges they’ll have to overcome;
however, while those challenges may be difficult, they will be no more difficult
than those faced by a child being raised by a single mother, or a child being
raised by a mixed-race couple, or a child being raised by a welfare mom and a
crack-dealing dad.
So much for THAT argument.
“Finally, Mr. Chairman,” the congresswoman says as she begins to wrap up,
“polling data supports…”
Polling data? First, who cares? This isn’t a democracy; it’s a constitutional
republic. If polling data supported the return to slavery, would the
congresswoman be sponsoring a bill to repeal the 13th Amendment? I sure hope
not.
Secondly, Rep. Musgrave cites only one poll to make her case; a CBS News/New
York Times poll conducted last March. However, other polls - including one
limited solely to evangelical Christians - show that while folks don’t
necessarily support the notion of same-sex marriage, they nonetheless also
oppose a constitutional amendment banning them. So there you go. Live by the
poll, die by the poll.
Rep. Musgrave’s final sentence of her testimony brings us full circle and,
again, undermines her argument. “The purpose of the FMA,” she says, is to tell
the United States Supreme Court “that they have erred.” But there’s an 800-pound
gorilla in that statement: The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t RULED on this issue
yet. Rep. Musgrave wants to take the extreme measure of amending the
Constitution to reverse a Supreme Court decision which hasn’t even been
rendered. Now, I understand and support the concept of pre-emption when it comes
to the war on terrorists, but over marriage?
And speaking of the war on terrorists, how many members of Congress missed that
now-infamous January 16, 2004, Pentagon press release about prison abuses at Abu
Ghraib because they were focusing on this federal marriage amendment instead?
Isn’t it time for Congress to get back to the REALLY important national issues
and leave the states to deal with their own marriage laws, just as the Founders
intended?
Tomorrow, gays will be getting married in Massachusetts. Let me make a few
predictions about what will happen the day after tomorrow: The sun will still
rise, birds will sing, fish will swim and grass will grow. People will still be
dying in Iraq. Michael Moore will still be a loud-mouthed jerk. John Kerry will
still be talking about his service in Vietnam 30 years ago. And thousands upon
thousands of straight couples will continue to sign up for “traditional”
marriages all across the fruited plain, settle down and have children.
The only difference is that some gay couples will also find themselves “married”
the day after tomorrow. The world will not come to an end. “Traditional”
marriage will not be destroyed. The population will continue to re-populate
itself. Armageddon will not have been ushered in.
But terrorists will still be trying to kill Americans...gay and straight. Isn’t
it time for Congress to get back to frying (literally) these much bigger fish?
# # #
Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy
organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not
necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. He may be reached at
chuckmuth@earthlink.net.
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
|
