Though gay marriage has been replaced by Katrina relief and Republican scandals at the forefront of national debate, you can bet it will be there in 2008. That presidential election practically guarantees GOP homophobic pandering. Wedge issues like gay marriage fit right into the charged partisan atmosphere that today passes for political discourse.
But why wait until the 2008 election to look at an issue that is increasingly becoming fodder for state legislatures nationwide? Nine states are currently debating gay marriage amendments, both for and against it. The debate breaks down to those who support civil rights for all against those who support civil rights for select groups.
Maryland finds a surreal debate illustrating the folly of those rallying against gay marriage. A Republican state legislator, Don Dwyer, introduced impeachment proceedings against a Baltimore judge, M. Brooke Murdock, who ruled banning same sex marriages was unconstitutional. Dwyer cited "misbehavior in office, willful neglect of duty and incompetence" in motioning for her removal. But Dwyer has no support within the legislature for his position; he is politically grandstanding at taxpayers' expense. It's obvious the results don't matter. As long as Dwyer scores points with homophobes, it is worth it for him.
Those seeking to ban gay marriage claim it's unnatural, yet it's genetic and chemical foundations are studied scientifically. Marriage is for procreation they say; yet old and infertile couples are allowed to marry. Having a mom and dad is key to healthy families they argue, but the divorce rate continues to skyrocket along with the number of single mothers. They claim gays make unfit parents, but there is no research to support this theory. Gay marriage is declared a menace to society, yet gun ownership is promoted at every turn.
There is simply no reason why gay marriage should be banned. Everyone from insurance companies to corporate and government employers give gay couples the same benefits as straight couples. About the only thing in the country that doesn't recognize gay couples are the U.S.'s antiquated marriage laws. It's time to move on.
Out of the ordinary
Rumsfeld vs. FAIR ruling a nuanced decision to a nuanced argument
The unanimous Supreme Court free speech ruling upholding the law requiring schools accepting federal aid to allow military recruiters on campus is a blow to gay civil rights activists. However, it's the right decision nonetheless.
At the heart of the ruling is the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, which discriminates by prohibiting openly gay people from serving. The Solomon amendment passed in 1996 said colleges forbidding military recruiters on campus couldn't receive federal funding. A suit was brought forth in response arguing it was unfair for schools to have to choose between federal funding, or to support discrimination. The Roberts court rejected the first amendment argument, ruling in favor of the military.
We have no problem with military recruitment on campus, no one is forced to join, and there's no campus-based coercion involved. Plus, many support the military's presence on campus grounds. And it seems logical that schools accepting federal aid should not be allowed to reject the biggest federal benefactor around, the military.
The problem resided with the law schools' and professors' argument as it largely stemmed from their objection to the military itself. That's why the issue was framed around the military's presence on campus, not its discriminatory polices towards homosexuals. An anti-military agenda was co-opted by a disingenuous free speech fa?\0xA4ade that actually hurt their case. It allowed the Supreme Court to rule on the issue of free speech, not the military's discrimination against gays.
While we are concerned about the slippery slope the ruling presents in protecting the military's right to discriminate against gays, military recruiters should not be banned from campus. After all, this is still a free country. If activists want to reform the military's policies, then that is a matter they should tackle head on, not via a related side-door issue.
