One largely positive byproduct of greater federal control has been the government’s tendency to use its power to enforce equality. Constitutional amendments extended voting power first to Black Americans and then to women. Other federal action helped to integrate educational institutions and to abolish racist and sexist practices throughout the land. Some will argue that these actions have gone too far, citing hiring quotas, etc., and they may have a point but the spirit of the actions were appropriate and the end result favorable. While largely unpopular at the time, these governmental actions have resulted in a society more tolerant and accepting of different walks of life, and from that we all benefit.
While major barriers have been deconstructed on the fronts of race and gender, not so many have yet fallen for homosexuals. This minority is currently fully mobilized and in the process of demanding that the status gained by racial minorities be given to them. While Middle America has come around regarding racial tolerance, it hasn’t yet embraced the homosexual cause. This is because most Americans recognize that one’s race is a circumstance of birth and cannot be helped, and it doesn’t make logical sense to fault anyone simply because he was born a certain way. No such consensus exists on the issue of homosexuality, even among homosexuals themselves. Many Americans consider a homosexual lifestyle to be a moral affront, and no one can agree on whether homosexuals choose their sexual preference or if again it is simply a circumstance of birth. In all probability, both are true. What people do in their own bedrooms is no one’s business, provided that it doesn’t hurt anyone else. Of course, this debate has hardly been kept in anyone’s bedroom – it’s being played out in state capitols and city halls and courtrooms all over the land. Consider these recent developments: the state of Vermont recently made same-sex marriages legal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts might exclude homosexuals from their membership and the city of Madison, WI voted to extend benefits to same-sex partners of city employees to be paid from taxpayer funds.
Agree or disagree, governments are getting involved here. And whatever side of the argument you are on you know one thing for sure – your money is funding both sides. Who’s right here? Should people be denied rights because of their sexual habits? Should they be given special privileges because of them? Of course not. And my assertion is that this would be a good time for the Federal Government to fully step in and end this debate, once and for all getting the sexual practices of consenting adults off the public docket. How?
Legalize same-sex marriage on the national level. This is one of those basic rights homosexuals are denied for some ridiculous reason. Yes, one could argue from anthropological or religious perspectives that marriage is a cultural institution designed for a man and woman for the purposes of child rearing, etc. That’s fine, but I have two arguments to this. First, marriage, with which is supposed to come loyalty and fidelity, should be encouraged among whomever. This will by its very nature cut down on promiscuity and the accompanying diseases. If homosexual couples are willing to make the same promises and sacrifices to each other that heterosexual couples do, more power to them, and they should be given all the rights and privileges that come with that. My second rebuttal to the “traditional” marriage argument is that two adults no matter what their sex can share a deep love for one another. Who can tell me that a gay man who deeply loved his partner wouldn’t sleep on hospital waiting room couches night after night while his partner was being treated for cancer? Who can tell me that a gay woman who deeply loved her partner wouldn’t wait tables while her partner attended law school so that one day the two of them can share a better life together? If two adult partners share such a love, why should we as a society not celebrate and sanction it no matter what the sexual combination? We certainly should.
However, inherent in any legislative action to legalize same-sex marriage would be the assumption that marriage is required to earn special benefits. There is no reason that same-sex partners who share no commitment of any kind should be awarded taxpayer money when heterosexual uncommitted couples are not. These benefits should only be awarded couples willing to make that commitment. A law legalizing same-sex marriage would put Americans of all sexual persuasions on equal footing. Thus, homosexuals would need to give up any claim on special rights or protections, quotas, etc. They would also need to accept the fact that because their lifestyle choices do offend some, it needs to be kept out of the public arena, and the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy would be the general societal rule as it is today in the military. They also need to accept the Supreme Court ruling that private groups have the right to decide for their membership requirements for themselves. Since the Federal government has decided that one of its jobs is ensuring equality for American citizens, then it has nothing short of an obligation to act here, and to end this divisive public debate.
Do you have a moral problem with this? THEN BRING IT ON!!!
At the outset of the Constitutional government, federal laws were enacted primarily to handle budgetary matters, appropriations of funds and minting of currency, things like that. Constitutional amendments guaranteed some basic freedoms, and pretty much everything else was left up to the states. Well the Civil War changed all that, and the federal government got in the business of legislating. Twentieth Century wars and other crisis increased federal power, mostly out of necessity. The merits of a stronger versus a weaker centralized government is a topic to be debated ad infinitum and as time marches on the balance of that power continues it’s pendulum-like swing from the federal government to local governments. This is not what this article is about.