Same-Sex Marriages in the United States - Report Example

Same-sex Marriages in the United s Background The controversy over same-sex marriages in the United s s back to 1972(Camenker 4). In that year, the Supreme Court dismissed Baker v. Nelson. The Supreme Court of Hawaii kicked off the modern debate when it ruled that the marriage ban of the state was unconstitutional. Since DOMA was enacted in 1996, the debate has tended to take the form of court ruling against bans while legislative efforts try to reinstate those bans. This paper discusses the hot topic of same-sex marriages in the United States and how it relates to politics and governance. The paper also examines the various viewpoints on the issue as well as current and possible future trends. Same-sex Marriages and Politics and Governance Given its controversy, the issue of same-sex marriage continues to shape American politics and governance, both at the federal and states levels. In this section, the author examines the relationship between same-sex marriage debate and politics and governance at the federal level. The state level is discussed under the heading "Current status of the Issue". Legally speaking, the status of a person, including their marital status, is determined to a large extent by the laws of the individual states. Until 1996, the federal government had no definition of marriage(Smith 24). As a result, a marriage that a state recognized, the federal government too recognized. It did not matter whether or not one or more state(s) recognized it. Then, in 1996, the federal government enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The essence of DOMA was that it recognized only those marriages involving people of different sex while declining to recognize same-sex marriages. Consequently, same-sex couples are not entitled to the same rights that heterosexual spouses enjoy. These include the right to social security and Medicaid. The judiciary has not escaped the same-sex marriage issue. In 1972, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal relating to Baker v. Nelson(Smith 18). This was a same-sex marriage case that had originated from Minnesota. In the courts opinion, the appeal was not strong enough to warrant the attention the U.S. Supreme court. For many years that ensued, the so-called Baker precedentlocked gay rights activists out of federal courts. This was the case until the same court determined the Windsor case. Now most federal courts hear and determine cases involving same-sex marriages. Opponents of same-sex marriages have tried to stop individual states from legalizing same-sex marriages by trying to change the United States Constitution to explicitly define marriage as the union between a woman and a man(Camenker 5). In 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Federal Marriage Amendment. If enacted, the amendment would bar states from approving same-sex marriages. The proposed amendment was the debated in the full Senate. However, when it went to Congress, the amendment was defeated by both houses. In April 2014, the Alabama legislature resolved to call for a constitutional convention to recommend an amendment to the Constitution to abolish same-sex marriages across the whole nation. It is not clear how this initiative fared. Despite the unending controversy at home, the United States has attempted to impose its divided views on same-sex marriages and gay rights on countries that receive development aid from it(La Croix and Gabriel 20). An example was when, in recent years, America demanded that Zimbabwe embrace, grant and safeguard the rights of the gay as a precondition for funding. While not exactly the same as same-sex marriage, the author believes there is a close relationship between the two. Interest Groups For purposes of this paper, parties that have an interest or role to play in the same-sex debate will be categorized into: gay rights activists, opposition and public figures. Promoters of gay rights contend that homosexuals have the right to pursue their sexual orientation(Flores and Barclay 7). This right, they add, includes the right to enter a marriage or other form of civil union with a willing person of the same sex. In their arguments, they draw a lot of support from the United States Constitution that is at best vague in its definition of marriage. This ambiguity creates an environment in which all sorts of interpretation of marriage can be propagated. Opponents of same-sex marriage in America base their argument on religious and parenting concerns(Camenker 7). They also contend that changing the definition of marriage would usher in undesirable practices like polygamy and incest. How the amendment referendum campaigns are funded, however, remains another source of controversy. It is not clear who funds the campaigns. Hence, judges have ruled that it is illegal to hide sources of funding. In 2012, the NationalOrganization for Marriage pledged to use $250,000 to beat the Republican state senators who supported same-sex marriage. Barack Obama is reported as being the first sitting President to support same-sex marriage(Pollikof 42). Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both former presidents, several former vice-presidents and the sitting Vice President, Joe Biden, have expressed their support legalization of same-sex marriage. These and many other politicians are known to be shapers of public opinion. Their influence in this debate cannot be underestimated. It is likely that the opinions of many Americans shift depending on that of their most influential politician. Current Status of the Issue Today, the state of same-sex marriages varies greatly from one state to the next(Lofquist 3). At present, at least five states have legalized and, therefore, recognize marriages involving people of the same sex. These are Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Iowa and Connecticut. Even though the state of New York prohibits same-sex marriages there, it does recognize those that happen elsewhere in the country. Many other states are lukewarm at best on same-sex marriages: they allow unions between people of the same gender. The only difference is in terminology: they choose to call them “unions between people of the same gender”, not same-sex marriages. Another nineteen states, most of them located in the central part of the country, have banned same-sex marriages completely and imposed restrictions on other forms of civil unions involving people of the same sex(Lofquist 2). These states tend to be conservative. Another five states have prohibited same-sex marriages without any specific laws against them. The rest of the states have passed laws that either grant specified, limited rights to couples of the same sex or block same-sex unions altogether. Only one state is completely silent on same-sex marriages: New Mexico. The federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages(Smith 30-32). This is in line with the longstanding stance of the federal government to remain neutral in matters of civil rights. This stand was reinforced in 1996 when the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted. DOMA only recognizes a marriage between people of different genders. Thus, a same-sex couple from a state that allows same-sex marriages cannot enjoy the rights granted to married people under DOMA. These rights include social security, hospital visitation rights and Medicaid. At present, the climate of same-sex marriages is highly contentious. President Obama has declared that he is opposed to DOMA and vowed to get it repealed(Flores and Barclay 4). Then, in what seems to be a contradiction, the President has said that he does not support a full recognition of same-sex marriages. Instead, he favors civil unions. If successful, the President’s move would enable same-sex couples to enjoy the rights currently denied them by DOMA. The Act would enable this without expressly labelling their union a “marriage”. On their part, promoters of gay rights are pushing for the removal of bans on same-sex marriages imposed by states. They are attempting to achieve this through judicial and legislative means. In fact, there are many cases in courts today that question the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriages. Going forward, the same-sex marriage debate is likely to rage on for several years to come. With both the supporters and opposition vowing to spend money on their cause, only time will tell the ultimate outcome of the debate. Conclusion The debate on same-sex marriages is a hot one. Opinions on the topic are varied among different sections of the American public. Most Americans have strong convictions one way or the other about the topic. The media have considerable influence over the debate. However, most of the information on same-sex marriages that the media circulates is largely influenced by the beliefs held by the respective media house or the beliefs of its target audience. Given these circumstances, it is extremely difficult to find a uniform viewpoint on the topic. Works cited Camenker, Brian. What same-sex "marriage" has done to Massachusetts. Fact File. Massachusetts: MassResistance, 2012. Print Flores, Andrew and Scott Barclay . Public Support for Same-sex Couples by State. Research. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute, 2013.print La Croix, Sumner and Lauren Gabriel. The Impact of Same-sex Marriage on Hawaii Economy and Government. Working Paper. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 2013. Print Lofquist, Daphne. Same-sex Couple Households. Survey. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau, 2011. print Pollikof, Nancy. "What Marriage and Equality Arguments Portend for Domestic Partner Employee Benefits." New York University Review of Law and Social Change (2013): 49-61. Print Smith, Alison. Same-sex Marriages: Legal Issues. Research. Wasnhington, DC: Congress, 2012. Print Read More