GAY MARRIAGE

GAY MARRIAGE

This first blog entry will explore the subject of Gay Marriage.  As the Supreme Court gets ready to rule on this issue, I’m afraid they will determine a winner and a loser on this issue, instead of returning the issue to the Congress to develop a policy that accommodates the needs and concerns of both sides on this issue.

If the Supreme Court determines that the Equal Rights provision of the Constitution means States cannot deny the rights and benefits of marriage under civil law to one section of the population, then the Liberals win and the Conservatives who believe that marriage should be limited to the traditional definition of one man and one woman will lose.  Or if they decide that there is no such Constitutional protection, and allow the States to discriminate on this issue, then the Liberals lose and the Conservatives win.

In keeping with the purpose of this blog, I’d like to suggest the “Third Alternative”, or what others call a “Win-Win” alternative.  I hope to demonstrate that by accommodating the needs and concerns of both sides, a possible “Third Alternative” policy could be developed that would satisfactorily resolve the issue for most Americans.

First, let's review what the most often publicly stated positions are with regard to this issue:

1. Conservatives and Republicans seem to believe that Marriage should be defined as an institution limited to one man and one woman. They are opposed to any move by the Government to define Marriage in any other way.   Many are in favor of a Constitutional Amendment to limit Marriage to one man and one woman to prevent the Courts from finding a "right" to a broader definition of Marriage in their interpretation of the Constitution.

2. Liberals and Democrats seem to believe that Marriage should be defined to include all types of family units including and beyond one man and one woman, and that the definition of Marriage and the assignment of the rights and civil benefits cannot and should not "discriminate" against sexual orientation, lifestyle or other family unit choices, based on our Constitutional guarantees of equal rights and justice for all.

At face value, there might not appear to be "common ground" on this issue. It seems we are on a course as a society where one side will continually try to force its point of view on the other . . . the classic definition of "Win-Lose".   However the Supreme Court acts this month, if they choose a “Winner” and a “Loser” in their decision, which will not “settle” the issue for long.  Whichever sides “loses” will surely seek a way to invalidate or supersede the decision.

Before suggesting a "Third Alternative", I'd like to review a couple of principles and values that I believe most Americans would admit to sharing, and following that to suggest an approach to this issue based on these principles and values that hopefully might represent a "Win-Win" for all concerned parties.

Here are the principles that appear to be relevant to this issue:

1. Two of the bedrock principles upon which our country was founded are religious freedom for all, and Separation of Church and State. To me, this does not restrict the Government from acting with the acknowledgement of the existence of a Supreme Being, as this belief is a core value upon which the Declaration of Independence rests.   This is also echoed in our Pledge of Allegiance.  But no specific religion’s view of God is endorsed in any of our founding documents or routine pledges or even our public oaths of office. 

But the Separation of Church and State doctrine does restrict the Government from putting into public law the teachings of any single or group of specific religions.  Such teachings may be viewed as important elements of a life well lived and of a wholesome society, but they should be advocated as a preferred choice and not enforced as public law . . . even despite the view of a majority that such laws would result in a more wholesome society.   But this doctrine requires a clear separation between specific religious teachings about the ideal ways to live life, and the public laws which govern all of us of whatever, or no, religious affiliation. Our Constitution and our public laws spring from the desire to ". . . establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility . . . promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty. . .". Thus, public laws are appropriately restricted to those regulations deemed necessary to protect the rights and well-being of all citizens in the context of a free society based on individual liberty.

2. The second principle actually springs from the first . . . that the "inalienable" rights with which all of us are endowed by our Creator include "liberty" and the “pursuit of happiness". These are the very essences of a "free society". No one should presume to define what “happiness” anyone else chooses to pursue, as long as the rights or well-being of others are not directly impacted by those choices. With regard to religion, each of us is free to affiliate with any religion we choose, and equally free to choose to affiliate with no religion. Each of us has the very clear expectation that our public laws are NOT going to be a translation of the teachings, rules or laws of any one religion.

One of the core elements of our human condition that many religions, and most Christian religions, believe was granted to us by our Creator is the element of "free will". As long as we do not infringe on the rights of others, or cause harm or damage to others or their property and well-being, we are all free to exercise this "free will" in making our own choices as we live our lives.   In our free society, each person is free to follow their own conscious in choosing the guidelines and rules in our own lives.

The nature of Islamic societies where religious frameworks or teachings do serve as the basis for public law, versus individual liberty and free will, should be an effective reminder today of the incredible wisdom of this element as one of the core principles and freedoms we rightly cherish in our own society.

With that as preamble, here is the suggested "Third Alternative" to the issue of Government's Role in Marriage:

1. Government should have no role in the definition of Marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, established by religions well before the establishment of our civil laws. It is in fact a sacrament in many religions.  Government should not take on the role of defining or re-defining what is essentially a religious institution and ceremony. This pertains to all levels of Government -- Supreme Court, Congress, Executive, State Legislatures and/or State Courts.

2.  Government does have an inherent interest in protecting the institution of the family, and in conferring a set of special rights, benefits AND OBLIGATIONS on the parties involved in family units through public law.

3.  Thus, Government's role should be to establish a single set of laws enumerating the rights, the benefits and, as importantly, the obligations of citizens wishing to establish a family unit as recognized by public law. Many of these already have come to be defined over the course of the past 200-plus years as related to "Marriage", and they should be simply transferred to public laws that refer to the more general definition of "Families" or "Committed Unions".

In this law, there would be several specific ways that validation of a union as a "Family" or "Committed Union" would be accomplished. The principle requirement would be the formal and legal request for the rights and benefits of a “Family” or “Committed Union” and the formal acknowledgement and acceptance of the legal obligations on each party requesting such designation.   Certainly the existence of any certified religious "Marriage" ceremony would be the basis for such definition under the law, as would a certified non-religious or sectarian "Commitment" ceremony.   The legal designation involving the acceptance of obligations would be a separate legal step.

And finally, reflecting the core principles of our free society discussed above, "Family" units or “Committed Unions” under the law would be a designation available to any citizens who are willing to legally accept the rights and obligations, and that make the commitment separately and together, that come from establishing a "Family" unit or “Committed Union” under the law.

This approach would seem to represent a "Win-Win" for both positions cited above:

--For Conservatives and Republicans, the Government would leave the definition of "Marriage" to the separate religions. The concern that the definition might be changed by Legislative act or by Court decree would be eliminated.

--For the Liberals and Democrats, the rights, privileges and obligations of "Family" units would be extended to all citizens who willingly enter in to a committed relationship with one another, consistent with the core principle of one set of rights, benefits and obligations for all under the law. There would be no "separate but equal" outcome here, which is an approach to public policy we have long rejected as a society, under the principles that "all are created equal" and thus have the same rights to “equal protection” under the law.

As a reader, your comments, suggestions, additions and disagreements with this posting are invited and truly encouraged. I only ask that posted comments contain appropriately respectful language to civil discussion and argument for them to remain as part of the discussion thread here.

Finally, I would like to encourage readers and visitors to suggest topics for future postings. On my own list, I plan to address the issues of Economic Development, Job Growth, Middle Class Prosperity, Illegal Immigration and Resolution of the Middle East conflicts in future postings. But I would like for this forum to reflect the interests and priorities of those who become the audience of interested readers, and so I welcome your input as to what topics should be included in the near future.

Thanks in advance for participating.