Marriage Protection Act of 2011 - Report Example

Marriage Protection Act of Introduction This paper discusses the proposed Marriage Protection Act of The law proposes to amend the Federal judicial code with the view to denying federal courts the jurisdiction to hear or determine any question relating to the validity or constitutionality of Section 2 of the 1996 DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) (Congress). Under Section 2 of DOMA, no state is obliged to recognize the legal validity of a same-sex relationship that is entered into and recognized by another state (Pew Research Centre). For decades now, same-sex marriage has been the subject of heated public debate that has pitted its supporters against those opposed to it (Pew Research Centre). The opponents of gay marriages are also the promoters of conventional marriage. Until 2004, same-sex marriage was prohibited in all US jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions have since legalized its laws, court rulings, rulings of tribal councils and statewide referenda (Pew Research Centre). There are three aspects of legalizing same-sex marriage: the issuance of licenses for same-sex marriages, the legal recognition of those licenses, and the recognition by a state of a same-sex marriage licensed in another state. This last aspect is the subject of Section 2 of DOMA. Over the years, promoters of same-sex marriage have moved to federal courts to challenge the validity and constitutionality of Section 2 of DOMA (Pew Research Centre). The proposed Marriage Protection Act is a direct response of the supporters of traditional marriage – marriage between a man and a woman - to the legal actions of promoters of same-sex marriage. To support the above position, a summary of the proposed law will be provided. The "Argumentation” section discusses conventional marriage supporters’ justification for the law while the “Counter-argumentation” presents gay marriage promoters’ justification for the unconstitutionality of Section 2 of DOMA. I support the proposed law that opposes same-sex marriages, as my religion and morals accept the institution of marriage exemplified in the bible. Summary of the Law From 2004, there has been accelerated licensing of same-sex marriages by states. As of December 2014, 37 states are reported to license same-sex marriages (Human Rights Campaign 2). All the 37 states except one - Kansas – recognize those licenses as being valid under their laws. The purpose of the Marriage Protection Act, as stated, is to amend the judicial code of federal courts to remove their jurisdiction to hear and determine cases that challenge the validity and constitutionality of Section 2 of DOMA. The section leaves to the state the discretion to recognize same-sex marriage licensed and recognized in another state. Effectively, the framers of the Act sought to curtail the further spread of gay marriages in the remaining states. However, work on the bill seems to have stalled: the last action on it was on March 21, 2011 when it was presented to the Subcommittee on the Constitution (Congress). The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has been at the forefront in the fight against same-sex marriage and the preservation of the dignity of the traditional institution of marriage that unites a man and a woman (Maine Supreme Judicial Court 1). Though not confirmed, the organization is believed to be a major sponsor of the bill. In 2012, the organization vowed that it was prepared a vast sum of money to defeat the promoters of same-sex marriage through legislative races. The other major supporters of traditional marriages and, therefore, likely supporters of the bill are churches and church organizations such as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention. Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is a major promoter of gay marriages (Human Rights Campaign 1) and, consequently, a likely opponent of the bill. Argumentation The proposed Marriage Protection Act is a direct response of the supporters of traditional marriage – marriage between a man and a woman - to the legal actions of promoters of same-sex marriage. Until 1996, no federal law apart from the Constitution defined marriage (Human Rights Campaign 52). However, according to promoters of traditional marriage, the Constitution’s definition of marriage is vague and open to different interpretation, including same-sex marriage (Pew Research Centre). Then, in what might be seen as a correction of the Constitution and a win for the promoters of conventional marriage, DOMA was enacted in 1996 and its third section defined marriage, in terms of federal law, as a union of a man and a woman. Prior to the enactment of DOMA, promoters of traditional marriage had unsuccessfully tried to change the Constitution to redefine marriage as the union between a man and a woman, thereby ruling out the possibility of gay marriages under the Constitution. Soon after its passage into law in 1996, DOMA, and especially Section 3 became the subject of a series of lawsuits (Pew Research Centre). The constitutionality, hence validity of DOMA’s Section 3 were challenged in federal courts. On many occasions, the courts ruled that DOMA violated the constitutional definition of marriage and the clause in the Constitution on equal protection. Thus, it is logical to conclude that by seeking to bar federal courts from questioning the constitutionality of Section 2 of DOMA, the framers of the Marriage Protection Bill were determined to end court battles between themselves and gay marriage promoters, once and for all. However, their move was not watertight as Section 3 of DOMA would still be subject to scrutiny by federal courts. Besides the argument of the constitutionality of the proposed law, the promoters of traditional marriage have also advanced more general arguments in support of conventional marriages as opposed to gay marriages. For instance, the National Organization for Marriage has argued that children are best raised by a father and a mother (Maine Supreme Judicial Court 3). Therefore, the legalization of same-sex marriages is injurious to the interests of children. While overall, the NOM’s argument is accepted, the organization has not produced hard, empirical argument that demonstrates that children brought up by same-sex parents are at somewhat of a disadvantage compared to their counterparts that are raised by cross-gender parents. To this end, NOM and other opponents of gay marriages need to do more in terms of substantiating their claims. Opponents of same-sex marriage have also argued on religious and moral basis (Pew Research Centre). On religion, Christian groups refer to the biblical model of the institution of marriage. They argue that God intended marriage to be between one man and one woman and that Americans or any other human beings, have no business changing this model. The problem with this argument is that not all gay couples and promoters of gay rights are Christians to be bound by biblical teachings. Moreover, even though empirical evidence is absent, it is evident that there is a significant gay population among Christians in the United States. On moral grounds, they argue that legalizing gay marriages would gradually lead to the widespread acceptance of incest and polygamy. Counter-argumentation Gay right promoters may argue that by attempting to curtail the spread same-sex marriages through the proposed law, promoters of traditional marriages are violating the constitutional clause on equal rights (Human Rights Campaign 44). Under the clause, every American has the right to associate with people of their choice. The idea of association here encompasses a wide range of interactions – social, political, economic, and intimate relations among others. The Constitution does no limit who a person may associate with depending on the nature of the association. Their argument would be reinforced by the Constitution’s rather open-ended definition of marriage. However, in advancing such arguments, the promoters of gay rights may need to bear in mind that while the Constitution grants the gay community, and all other Americans, the same Constitution assigns them responsibilities (Maine Supreme Judicial Court 3). For instance, one of the responsibilities is that while enjoying their constitutional rights, no person will interfere with the rights of other people. To this end, a gay couple leaving next to a heterosexual couple with children may be said to infringe the right of the heterosexual couple to bring up their children in an environment they believe is best for the children. Exposure to a gay couple may not be part the environment that the parents deem fit for their children. Gay rights activists propagate a host of other arguments to support their position. For instance, they argue that prohibiting same-sex marriage is retrogressive; it akin to taking America back to the era when interracial marriage was banned (Pew Research Centre). They also argue that by legalizing gay marriages, Americans will be recognizing and promoting the rights of the minority group that is the gay community (Pew Research Centre). According to HRC, many gay couples have been living in secrecy for up to fifty years out of the fear of being stigmatized or even attacked by anti-gay radicals (Human Rights Campaign 82). Hence, it is only fair that America legalizes gay marriage so that the gay community can stop living in fear and enjoy being Americans like everyone else. To support their position, the gay community has also resorted to psychologists who now claim that the allegations that same-sex marriages undermine the traditional institution of marriage and impact the development of children contradict scientific evidence that shows that gay relationships are as stable as heterosexual relationships (American Psychiatric Association 1). Overall, on scientific grounds, the gay community’s arguments are evidence-based, hence more persuasive. Conclusion The proposed Marriage Protection Act is a direct response of the supporters of traditional marriage – marriage between a man and a woman - to the legal actions of promoters of same-sex marriage. This is the logical conclusion going by the longstanding protracted legal battles the promoters and the opponents of same-sex (Pew Research Centre). Besides legal battles, the two camps have engaged in an intellectual kind of battle in which each camp has advanced arguments to support their position. Although on scientific grounds, it is more convincing to accept gay marriages. I am of the opinion that gay marriages should not be allowed , based on my morals and religion. Works Cited American Psychiatric Association. Position Statement on Adoption and Co-parenting of Children by Same-sex Couples. Position Paper. Arlington: American Psychiatric Association, 2002. Web. Congress. H.R.875 - Marriage Protection Act of 2011: 112th Congress (2011-2012). n.d. Web. 6 March 2015. Human Rights Campaign. Corporate Equality Index 2015: Rating U.S. Workplaces on LGBT Equality. Research. Washington, DC: Human Rights Campaign, 2014. Web. 6 March 2015. Maine Supreme Judicial Court. National Organization for Marriage et al. v. Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. Court Ruling. Maine: Maine Supreme Judicial Court, 2013. Web. Pew Research Centre. "In Gay Marriage Debate, Both Supporters and Opponents See Legal Recognition as ’Inevitable’ (Section 1: Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Inevitability)." 6 June 2013. Pew Research Centre. Web. 6 March 2015. Read More