Redefining marriage
The
US Supreme Court’s decision to strike down key provisions of the
Defence of Marriage Act has been hailed as a landmark moment for gay
rights in America. A more realistic assessment would note that same-sex
marriage is still banned or unavailable in 37 American states and
considerable legal hurdles remain if the definition of marriage is to be
taken out from the control of individual states as Roe v Wade did with
abortion rights. The implacable defence of “traditional marriage” by
Christian groups within the United States has made the ruling an
important skirmish within America’s ever-strident culture wars, but it
is far from an outright victory.
During the last twelve months six
American states have legalized same-sex marriage, bringing the total to
12 prior to the present squabble, initially over California’s
Proposition 8. That particular battle has now been resolved with the
court’s decision to rule in favour of same-sex unions. Further afield
there has been a comparable shift in public opinion. Already legal in 11
countries (among them Argentina, Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands)
gay marriage is being legalized with increasing frequency in many parts
of the world. This year alone Brazil and France legalized same-sex
unions, and New Zealand and Uruguay are poised to enact similar
legislation. A month from now, more than half a billion people will
reside in jurisdictions that recognize same-sex marriage, more than
twice the number just a year ago.
For practical purposes the DoMA
decision means that same-sex couples who are legally married, according
to the laws of their states, are entitled to non-discriminatory
treatment from the federal government. The decision is particularly
important, and long overdue, with respect to benefits like Social
Security and veterans’ payments. In the past, various federal agencies
used different criteria to assess whether a same-sex marriage was
“valid.” These inconsistencies have been swept aside in the latest
ruling, but the court refrained — significantly — from defining same-sex
marriage as a constitutional right. That omission has heartened
Christian groups throughout America.
Beyond the narrow legal
reasoning in the current Supreme Court decision, however, there is an
acknowledgement that the defence of “traditional marriage” has
increasingly been used to stigmatize same-sex couples. The disgraceful
marginalization of gay soldiers is but one aspect of this
discrimination. In a significant passage in the majority opinion (in the
5-4 decision), Justice Kennedy writes that “[t]he avowed purpose and
practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a
disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into
same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the
States.”
Kennedy’s language echoes earlier civil rights phrasing,
in Brown v Board of Education (1954), which, among other things, refuted
the ridiculous notion that black and white schools were “separate but
equal” and it also harks back to the less well-known 1967 decision in
Loving v Virginia, a case that invalidated laws prohibiting inter-racial
marriage. Observers outside the United States should note how recent
these civil rights victories were. It should give pause to everyone in a
culturally diverse region like the Caribbean that almost 50 years ago
the state of Virginia was legally permitted to jail a white man for the
crime of marrying a black woman. Those who argue that “traditional
marriage” cannot be easily redefined should think carefully about this
case before making sweeping assertions. Contemporary opposition to
same-sex unions will almost certainly appear as shortsighted and
demeaning to future American citizens as the pre-Loving prejudices seem
to us today.
The Caribbean has always been, and largely remains,
vociferously opposed to the acknowledgement of same-sex intimacy. If
nothing else the recent US debates over the issue have shown how
backward so many of our prevailing attitudes on these matters really
are. Nobody who has lived in a tolerant country would ever wish to turn
back the clock, especially when they see – as they inevitably do – the
freedom such tolerance brings to the lives of gay friends and family
members who would otherwise live in unbearable secrecy.
Same-sex
marriage, at this stage, is probably a bridge too far, but civilized
tolerance is certainly within our grasp. Local groups like the Equal
Rights Trust and the Society against Sexual Orientation Discrimination
have clearly shown the inconsistency between our current
anti-discrimination laws and others which criminalize “same-sex intimacy
between men and cross-dressing by both men and women.” It is high time
that civil society had an honest conversation about these incendiary
issues, and set about resolving them.
US Supreme Court’s decision to strike down key provisions of the
Defence of Marriage Act has been hailed as a landmark moment for gay
rights in America. A more realistic assessment would note that same-sex
marriage is still banned or unavailable in 37 American states and
considerable legal hurdles remain if the definition of marriage is to be
taken out from the control of individual states as Roe v Wade did with
abortion rights. The implacable defence of “traditional marriage” by
Christian groups within the United States has made the ruling an
important skirmish within America’s ever-strident culture wars, but it
is far from an outright victory.
During the last twelve months six
American states have legalized same-sex marriage, bringing the total to
12 prior to the present squabble, initially over California’s
Proposition 8. That particular battle has now been resolved with the
court’s decision to rule in favour of same-sex unions. Further afield
there has been a comparable shift in public opinion. Already legal in 11
countries (among them Argentina, Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands)
gay marriage is being legalized with increasing frequency in many parts
of the world. This year alone Brazil and France legalized same-sex
unions, and New Zealand and Uruguay are poised to enact similar
legislation. A month from now, more than half a billion people will
reside in jurisdictions that recognize same-sex marriage, more than
twice the number just a year ago.
For practical purposes the DoMA
decision means that same-sex couples who are legally married, according
to the laws of their states, are entitled to non-discriminatory
treatment from the federal government. The decision is particularly
important, and long overdue, with respect to benefits like Social
Security and veterans’ payments. In the past, various federal agencies
used different criteria to assess whether a same-sex marriage was
“valid.” These inconsistencies have been swept aside in the latest
ruling, but the court refrained — significantly — from defining same-sex
marriage as a constitutional right. That omission has heartened
Christian groups throughout America.
Beyond the narrow legal
reasoning in the current Supreme Court decision, however, there is an
acknowledgement that the defence of “traditional marriage” has
increasingly been used to stigmatize same-sex couples. The disgraceful
marginalization of gay soldiers is but one aspect of this
discrimination. In a significant passage in the majority opinion (in the
5-4 decision), Justice Kennedy writes that “[t]he avowed purpose and
practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a
disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into
same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the
States.”
Kennedy’s language echoes earlier civil rights phrasing,
in Brown v Board of Education (1954), which, among other things, refuted
the ridiculous notion that black and white schools were “separate but
equal” and it also harks back to the less well-known 1967 decision in
Loving v Virginia, a case that invalidated laws prohibiting inter-racial
marriage. Observers outside the United States should note how recent
these civil rights victories were. It should give pause to everyone in a
culturally diverse region like the Caribbean that almost 50 years ago
the state of Virginia was legally permitted to jail a white man for the
crime of marrying a black woman. Those who argue that “traditional
marriage” cannot be easily redefined should think carefully about this
case before making sweeping assertions. Contemporary opposition to
same-sex unions will almost certainly appear as shortsighted and
demeaning to future American citizens as the pre-Loving prejudices seem
to us today.
The Caribbean has always been, and largely remains,
vociferously opposed to the acknowledgement of same-sex intimacy. If
nothing else the recent US debates over the issue have shown how
backward so many of our prevailing attitudes on these matters really
are. Nobody who has lived in a tolerant country would ever wish to turn
back the clock, especially when they see – as they inevitably do – the
freedom such tolerance brings to the lives of gay friends and family
members who would otherwise live in unbearable secrecy.
Same-sex
marriage, at this stage, is probably a bridge too far, but civilized
tolerance is certainly within our grasp. Local groups like the Equal
Rights Trust and the Society against Sexual Orientation Discrimination
have clearly shown the inconsistency between our current
anti-discrimination laws and others which criminalize “same-sex intimacy
between men and cross-dressing by both men and women.” It is high time
that civil society had an honest conversation about these incendiary
issues, and set about resolving them.
Source:http://www.stabroeknews.com/2013/opinion/editorial/06/29/redefining-marriage/