What's next for same-sex marriage
Download audio (mp3)
(Image: flickr user: Jason Rosenberg (cc: by-sa))
While Maine becomes 31st state to ban gay marriage, many proponents see progress and believe it's just a matter of time.
The following is a partial transcript; for full story, listen to audio.
On Tuesday, Maine voters headed to the polls and reversed the state legislature's decision to permit gay marriage. Maine is the third state in the country where voters repealed a legislature-granted law allowing same-sex marriage, and the 31st state to ban gay marriage outright.
Is this repeal is part of a larger national trend? The emotional and strategic stakes for those trying to figure out what to do next are high.
Jill Barkley, a resident of Portland, Me, who was planning to marry her partner next summer, is disappointed, but also sees progress being made.
"Obviously it's a heartbreaking loss, but I think it's also important to remember that almost half of the voter who went to the polls voted for these rights to be bestowed on same-sex couples here. I think that that is something we can continue to work for."
For Andrew McLean, a gay man in Portland, Me, who volunteered with Equality Maine, it comes down to more years of waiting for equal rights.
"The fact remains that there are thousands of gay and lesbian couples who are still denied those basic rights that come along with marriage and will have to wait a couple of years to hopefully get on board with another campaign to get those rights."
McLean asserts that popular vote is not the right way to deal with rights issues. "History tells us that it doesn't work. If Brown vs Board of Education would not have happen, we would not have had desegregation if it was put up for a popular vote. We get into a lot of trouble in this country when we put up people's rights for a vote."
Suzanne Goldberg, Columbia Law Professor and Director of The Gender and Sexuality Law Program, believes there's an upside of Maine's No-vote on Gay marriage.
"I think what the campaigns tell us is that the tipping point is in sight. That for people who want marriage equality for same sex couples the glass is nearly half full. And if we look at the campaigns not just in the moment but in a broader frame, what we see is that the change has been steady and that it's really just a matter of time before we get to the point where gay and lesbian couples can marry freely."
Goldberg says the conversation around same sex marriage is also growing in many areas of society.
"Apart from the president, there are plenty of figures both national and local in every jurisdiction and around the country who are speaking out. What we see is that number was very small just a few years ago, and it has ballooned so that the cultural conversation along with the political, the legislative, and the judicial conversations are changing."
"The Takeaway" is a national morning news program, delivering the news and analysis you need to catch up, start your day, and prepare for what’s ahead. The show is a co-production of WNYC and PRI, in editorial collaboration with the BBC, The New York Times Radio, and WGBH.
Email to a friend
Print version
Plain text
Listen
The truth is most people do not care what others do in private. But marriage is not what the argument is about, is it?
The same sex community are arguing to make a law, which removes the right for anyone to believe that same sex relationships are wrong, even on religious principles. The redefinition makes someone a criminal if they believe it and think it and say it in a public forum: they could go to jail.
But, that is the whole point. The end is religious and moral authority as well as legal and social equality enforced by the government. This is not an overestimation but an underestimation of the long term impact of such a law.
Rather than taking advantage of the political and moral climate we have today and write some sensible and comprehensive common law which has teeth and which gives the same sex marriage advocates the things that they say they need, all their energies are focused into finding a way to get what they want. And what they want is a law which forces others to say that what they do is not only legal and social but religiously moral.
Such an approach has great dangers. People may not care who you sleep with, but they will fight you to the death over their religion.
The reason we need separation of church and state is that not all religions agree on the right way to do things. There are plenty of other examples of matters where certain religions have (or had) different ideas than the state on particular issues: whether a man can marry more than one woman at a time, whether married couples are allowed to get divorced, whether it is allowed to keep slaves, whether it is appropriate to beat children, what it is appropriate to eat and when, whether one can work or play cards on certain days, and so on. I'm sure you can think of other examples.
I don't see how you conclude that you will be jailed for believing that same-sex relationships are wrong. People who try to marry more than one person at a time are prosecuted, but I don't recall anyone being prosecuted lately for talking about it. Similar with female suffrage or corporal punishment. Some people aren't going to like it if you voice certain opinions, but you won't be arrested. (Should I be worried about being arrested for speaking out in favor?) Taking some kind of action against gays and lesbians who marry or those who perform such marriages would be another matter.
You say that the gay and lesbian community wants to change your religious principles. I doubt that. What they want is not to be restricted by your religious principles since they don't share those principles. In a secular society, whether to allow or prohibit particular acts or behaviors must be determined based on whether those acts or behaviors cause harm. I haven't seen any evidence that same-sex marriages would be worse than mixed-sex marriages. (Maybe we should have a vote on those, as well!)
If two people love each other and feel that they want to commit to taking care of each other over the long term, what harm will that cause? As you say, they're sleeping together anyway, so obviously the argument isn't about that.
The fight for equality before the law is not a waste of time and energy. The people wasting time and energy are the ones standing in the way. Many of the rights we currently enjoy (such as the freedom to practice one's religion without interference) were once just ideas, and people had to fight for them. This is no different.
Post your comment