The Evolution of Gay Marriage in the U.S.A

            Gay marriage, or same-sex marriage as some say, has been a hot topic of discussion in the United States for the last decade. This issue has become nearly as polarizing as abortion in recent years, and the seemingly contradicting stance of political and legislative leaders on this issue has only helped to inflame the masses further, regardless of their opinion on the subject. Because of the political back and forth on the issue, questions have risen about the legality of gay marriage. "Is it legal?" "Why should it be legal?" and "Why not?" I hope to answer these questions as we progress through the ever-changing social climate of the United States, and how our laws reflect these changes.

            Before delving into this issue further, a few questions must be answered. The first, and perhaps most prominent, is what the role of the Federal government is or should be on the topic of Gay Marriage. There are two main schools of thought on this, that have been around for quite some time, and depending on where you fit in, it may shape your opinion of the issue. The first line of thinking is that the Federal government should step in and make one law that will govern all of the states, and by extension, each case of gay marriage. The logic here would be that, like the Civil Rights cases of the mid 20th century (The Civil Rights Act, Brown vs. Board of Education), the Federal government should eliminate all forms of discrimination against gays and their right to marriage. This logic hinges on the belief that banning same-sex marriage is discrimination and an assault on the liberties of gays as individuals. The other school of thought is that each state should have the right to make their own laws on this subject; and because homosexuality reaches into the religious beliefs and values of many people, each state would be better equipped to pass laws that reflect these values. This, to some, is illustrated in the Constitution by the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"). These two schools of thought have emerged throughout American history, and their disciples have shaped the legislative landscape of the subject, no matter how contradicting and controversial.

            When navigating the legislative waters of the legality of gay marriage, a compass, or a map, or GPS may be appropriate. There have been quite a few twists and turns in the ever-thickening plot of gay marriage in the United States. Though as complicated and conflicted as it may seem, there are a few pieces of legislation generally associated with the issue of gay marriage. These vary in interpretation and have been subject to change over the years. There are State laws, Federal laws, and laws of public opinion; all of which are just as varying and seemingly capricious as a teenager's list of crushes. At the Federal level, the Full Faith and Credit Clause has been used for support of gay marriage. Yet, also at the Federal level, the Defense of Marriage Act puts an asterisk next to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. At the State level, the laws governing gay marriage are varied also. Some states allow same-sex marriage, some ban it, and some are in between. Why are there so many differing laws concerning gay marriage? Why is there so much confusion? The answer lies with the people, of whom our laws are reflected.

            In this country, the people vary from state to state. In New York, the temperament is much different than in Georgia. The beliefs of the people in New York, as a majority, are also much different than those of the people in Georgia. This difference is shown in the political arena, the religious institutions, and the cultural icons and celebrities of the people. This difference does not only exist between Georgia and New York. It exists across the nation. It is said time and time again that we are a nation of immigrants, that we are a cultural melting pot, and it's true. We have millions of people representing millions of families and backgrounds; and when it comes right down to it, making umbrella (all-encompassing) laws to govern the people of this nation are becoming increasingly difficult because of our diversity. That diversity should be celebrated, but the laws of the United States are supposed to be "by the people, for the people," and "of the people." On a nationwide scale, this is near impossible concerning social issues. Ask evangelicals their opinion on abortion, and see how vehemently opposed they are; and ask liberals the same question, and see how adamantly they support a woman's right to choice. Many people are still upset about abortion, and that political fight is still prevalent to those people. As sour as that subject is, should the government do the same (make an umbrella law that covers the entire nation) with gay marriage? To answer that question, I will examine the aforementioned laws in greater detail, as well as examine some of the recent political agendas that have surfaced regarding gay marriage.

            As previously mentioned, one of the most cited pieces of the Constitution in regards to gay marriage is the Full Faith and Credit Clause. There are four sections to this law, but the first section is the one that pertains to the issue. It states: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." As for the first statement, it is simply saying that the public proceedings, etc. of one state is supposed to be recognized in every other state. This might be used, for example, with child support. If a father is forced by one state to pay child support, he must pay it, even if he moves to another state. This clause also applies to public contracts, which is why many use this clause to support a Federal recognition of gay marriage. States make their own requirements for contract laws for the most part, and some states see marriage only as a contract. The logic goes like this: Marriage is a contract. The Full Faith and Credit Clause protects contracts from being discriminated against or ignored by other states. Therefore, gay marriage, as a contract recognized by some states, should not be discriminated against or ignored in other states. To supporters of gay marriage, this clause puts gay marriage squarely at the feet of the Federal government.

            While the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the interpretation of  it, seem pretty solid, the Federal government throws yet another wrinkle in. Opponents of gay marriage cite the Defense of Marriage Act, which leaves no doubt as to how the Federal government sees gay marriage. The act says this: "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." And also: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." In summary, to paraphrase, the Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA) states that no State is required to recognize the contract of same-sex marriage as allowed in other states; and that, for federal purposes, "marriage" is a legal union between one man and one woman. To opponents of gay marriage, this Act puts gay marriage squarely at the feet of the States. As illustrated by the conflict between the Full Faith and Credit Clause and DOMA, the issue of gay marriage at a Federal level has been nothing short of confusing.

            Perhaps the only laws more confusing than those at the Federal level are the laws on the State level, which can vary greatly from one state to another. Across the nation, the states have enacted different laws concerning gay marriage. For example, some states, such as Georgia and Alabama, have banned same-sex marriage and some or all other types of same-sex unions in their state constitutions. Other states, like Washington and New York, recognize same-sex marriage in their states as well as same-sex unions/marriages from other states. Different still, some states, such as California, ban same-sex marriage in their constitution yet recognize same-sex marriages from other states. As it currently stands, after our recent election, there are only nine states that allow same-sex marriage. Six states are "in between" with laws that may ban gay marriage, but recognize the unions of other states, or even give certain rights to same-sex couples in their own state. Most states still ban gay marriage, and do not recognize same-sex unions of any kind.

            As if conflicting laws at the Federal and State levels weren’t enough, recent political agendas have added even more confusion to this sensitive issue. In May, President Obama, our Chief Executive Officer, made a comment concerning gay marriage in an interview with ABC News. President Obama said, "I think same-sex couples should be able to get married." This is significant because he is the first President to openly support gay marriage. Even his Democratic predecessor and campaign aid, Bill Clinton, did not support same-sex marriage. In fact, he was the President that signed DOMA into law. On one side of the fence, supporters of gay marriage hailed Obama for his support. On the other side of the fence, opponents of gay marriage railed him. To some, regardless of their stance on same-sex marriage, Obama's comments are inappropriate. After all, the office of the Presidency is larger than any individual. The President of the United States is elected to office and is responsible for the duties of the job. One of the main duties of that job is to be our Chief Executive Officer, meaning it is the President's responsibility to uphold and execute the laws. Under President Obama's administration, the Department of Justice has stopped upholding the constitutionality of DOMA and has refused to enforce it. While the legality of that is questionable, the Democratic Convention added same-sex marriage to their platform during our most recent election. That night, two more states passed laws that would allow same-sex marriage. As is clearly the case, the current political climate of the United States can also add some confusion and conflict to the outlook of gay marriage.

            So far, some of the laws that "govern" gay marriage have been showcased. The conflicts at Federal and State levels have also been showcased. Different generations have produced different laws, and the landscape of gay marriage is still changing today. The root of these conflicts and changes though, lies deeper within than legislation. After all, legislation in America is only a reflection of the people and their values. The values are where the true differences arise. Different perspectives on political, cultural, and religious traditions make their way into legislation by way of the elected law-makers. I will do my best to present a couple of the differences in each of those three arenas that may be the cause of the conflict encountered with gay marriage.

            First, we have the political arena. Our current political scene is a polarized one. Party lines are written in ink it seems, and compromise is but a dream. On one side, the Republicans generally strongly oppose gay marriage (except for the log cabin Republicans!). They are Conservative in nature and hold fast to the traditional beliefs and religious precepts that make up their value system. The South, a safe haven for Republicans, is a great example of this. The South has been coined as the Bible belt, where many people are either churched or de-churched; but mostly people view themselves as Bible-believing Christians. This makes up who they are, and why they vote the way they do. Christianity has traditionally been anti-gay, though we will see later that is not always the case, and the laws of the Southern States are reflective of this. All of the States in the South ban same-sex marriage in their constitution, and many do not allow any sort of same-sex union to take place. On the other side of the fence, you have Democrats who are sometimes self-proclaimed liberals. They generally favor "progress" and liberty for all. They also typically favor minorities, which includes homosexuals. They believe that it is the responsibility of the Federal government to stand up for minorities, and demand laws that reflect their interests. On the issue of gay marriage, it is a question of liberty and equality for them. They typically equate sexual orientation with race, and treat gay marriage as a Civil Rights issue. They believe homosexuals should have the same rights and liberties concerning marriage as any other citizen, and (again, this is the big difference) demand the Federal government pass laws that reflect this. These are the two extremes of the political spectrum of the nation. For most people, they are somewhere in the middle. They don't strongly favor or oppose one or the other.

            Trying to gauge the cultural differences of America is like trying to hit a moving target. It's incredibly difficult to judge, and it can be completely different depending on the area you are in. Again, in the South, the culture is much different than in, say, the North East. Since America is the cultural mash up that it is, those differences can be very great. In general terms though, there are two cultures that are at odds. One is the culture of tradition. Things should not progress for the sake of progress alone; but if something works, keep doing it. This culture might suggest something that follows the line of thinking that "if it isn't broke, don't fix it." Gay marriage could be seen as an affront to their schema of marriage. The other culture is a sort of New Age culture. Perhaps, to some degree, they're trying to reinvent the wheel. They want to leave their mark on the world and gay marriage is a great place to start. This New Age culture cares greatly for the domestic issues of America, but may not care as much, or understand as much, about the fiscal issues. This culture is generally made up of young, aspiring people who have not known some of the hardships of the past.

            Finally, we have the religious conflicts of America. The idea of separation of Church and State is strongly upheld in the Constitution, which was written by men looking to escape the oppression of their form of government. As evidence of this, the very first amendment to the Constitution protects the religious freedoms of Americans, and limits the extent to which the government can endorse a religion. This is, by and large, an accepted concept; but it is countered by an equally evidenced argument that the founders of our nation were indeed religious men. In the Declaration of Independence, we are "Created" equal. Our "Creator" endowed us with inalienable rights. We are one nation "under God," and many of the laws and concepts in the Constitution are echoes of Biblical principles. Religion is such an integral piece of a person that, to some, it is impossible to separate religion from values. The concept of freedom, liberty, and justice are grounded in their understanding of God. It shapes the very definition of marriage. Others think that religious institutions and beliefs should have no bearing on the laws of the country. This subject is such a sensitive one that determining which viewpoint is "right" is impossible without making moral judgments on the opposing parties. With this at work, people either decide to stay away from the subject or go ahead and make those judgments. Be it that one side is made up of hypocrites, bigots, and close-minded fools, or another side is made up of heretics, god-haters, and hell-bound fools... It is easy to see how religion plays a big role in what people believe about gay marriage.

            As for me, I was raised in the South. I wasn't raised in Church, but I was raised with an idea of Church. My father taught me a lesson that has served me well thus far: the simple solution is the best solution. On a subject as complicated, heartfelt, and polarizing as gay marriage, my opinion is a simple one. The definition of marriage, the institution of marriage, is a Christian/religious one. It was set up at the beginning of time and is between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is, to me, an oxymoron. The word marriage, to be true to its actual definition, simply can't encompass homosexuals. It's like having a round square. It just can't be. Emily Dickinson worded it best when she penned, "finite infinity." This being said, I think compromise is in order. Instead of marriage, I see no problem with individual States allowing homosexuals the right to be together in civil unions as voted for and passed by their citizens; and claiming tax-breaks because of it. Civil unions though, are still a matter to be decided by States and not the Federal government. As was shown earlier, the people of Georgia elect the leaders they feel best reflect their values and beliefs, just like the people of New York elect leaders that they feel reflect their values and beliefs. Making a Federal law that forces every state to recognize a union that is against their people's beliefs is exactly the kind of tyranny our forefathers tried to escape. As for you, your opinion may be different, but it is important to look at both sides of the coin presented in this paper, and decide for yourself what fits your viewpoint the best. This subject is a crucial one moving forward because elected officials will pass the laws that reflect your views. One candidate will oppose gay marriage, and another will support it. If you don't have an opinion, or aren't educated on the subject, how will you know who to vote for? Get educated, take a stand, and let your voice be heard. The future our country depends on it!

 

 

Worked Cited

 

United State of America. Archives. Bill of Rights. Washington D.C.: GPO, Web. <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html>.

 

"Article IV: Full Faith and Credit Clause." Cornell University Legal Information Institute (2012). Cornell University School of Law. Web. 19 Nov 2012. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv>.

 

United States of America. 104th Congress. Defense of Marriage Act. Washington D.C.: GPO, 1996. Web. <http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ199/html/PLAW-104publ199.htm>.

 

"Defining Marriage: Defense of Marriage Act and Same-Sex Marriage Laws." NCSL (2012): n.pag. National Council of State Legislatures. Web. 19 Nov 2012. <http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-overview.aspx

It's like a SAUNA in here...

Beads of sweat formed on my forehead. A woodsy smell hung in the air. My pants were wet.


Yep. I was in a sauna.


That, in itself, is nothing glamorous or interesting. In itself, it's another bland post on Facebook. Today though, "interesting" struck. Like a baseball bat connects with the baseball, sending me screaming over the center-field wall, into the hands of a sweaty 40-something guy. Oh yes. Today, "interesting" struck my life. You see, I was not in this sauna by myself. Today, a man named Chris sat next to me. Within a short time of speaking with him, I ascertained he was a Freshman at Gainesville State College; he was in fencing club; and he was an atheist. I also ascertained that I had forgotten a towel; but that's off base. Back to Chris. So! Chris was a very interesting individual; and I found it a stroke of luck (or, you know, the will of God) that our paths crossed today. After a bit of conversation, I was able to ask him why he was an atheist. His answers follow:

1. Levitical laws are dumb/bigoted/etc.
2. Personal experiences lead him to unbelief
3. "Church people" turned him away (Not very different from 2; but distinct)

1. Levitical laws are dumb/bigoted/etc.
Interestingly enough, I find that the Levitical laws/Old Testament laws in general come up often with atheists; but only in bits and pieces. For example, one might say "putting to death children for disobedience is crazy." Now, I will admit, I am extremely grateful that I was born after Jesus. Because I would have been put to death as a child! But you have to see the Law for what it is, which is the Lord's demand for perfection. It's not that the Law is evil, or that the Law is bad; but sin, taking advantage of our human condition, used the Law to entice us to sin further (Romans 7:7-14). The Law shows us our need for mercy and grace (Romans 5:18-21). After all, from the very beginning, our affection and worship is what the Lord was aiming for; yet our disobedience kept a just God from simply "letting it go" when sin was committed. Also, atonement is one thing that is overlooked. The Law pointed to behavior/cognition as sinful; and there are many of them pointed out. The punishment is death by various manners. Yet, there was atonement for that sin by the "sin offering." Blood was used to atone for sin. It's not that parents necessarily killed their children for disobeying (though they, by Law, would have been justified in doing so), but because of the sin of the child there must be atonement. When there is sin, there must be a way to atone for it. The two methods Scripture gives us is by blood or by death. Either way, something has to be done about sin. So, I find that the argument about Levetical Laws comes from a misunderstanding of the Gospel and Scripture as a whole.

2. Personal experiences lead him to unbelief
"If there was a God, then the stuff that happened to me would not have happened." Or, "Even if there is, then Him allowing it to happen means He isn't worthy of being worshiped." These are the two phrases used to sum up a plethora of personal experiences that hardened his heart toward the Father. It seems that this is not a problem benign to atheists. I know at times the "bad" things that have happened in my life (especially early on in my faith, yet still in some ways today) made me question Him and/or His existence. When I talked to Chris about it though, I made sure that concepts of God, or vague, reiterated notions would not come in to play. Basically, I'm not going to hold God responsible for something that Scripture doesn't agree with. He obliged and we gently went back and forth a little more. Reconciling pain and suffering to the idea of a loving God is a problem that many people have, regardless of their religion. "If God loved me, why would He let this happen?" Again, I point to Scripture to guide us in that. Jesus knew what it meant to suffer, to be ostracized, and experience pain on physical, mental, and spiritual levels. "My God, my God. Why have You forsaken me?" was his cry on the cross (Matthew 27:46). In the Garden of Gethsemane before his crucifixion he sweat blood, and prayed for the cup to pass (Matthew 26:36-46, Luke 22:43-44). So, we can take note that even the God of the universe knows what it is to suffer sorrow, pain and anguish. The point to take from this is that God's character is not one that will keep us from all pain. Because of this, we must look at pain as an opportunity to grow. Also, Scripture tells us that the world we live in is a broken world. It's not as the Lord intended it to be. You can't assume that all is from God or as He would like it to be. The Almighty limits Himself for the good of his Creation and to bring to fruition true glory. As agnostic poet Emily Dickinson wrote "Water, is taught by thirst." You can't know the true height of God's glory until you've experienced the true depth of your own condition. One of my favorite authors, Philip Yancey, wrote a book related to this entitled, "Disappointment with God." I would recommend it for anyone struggling with this reconciliation. There is much more to be said, and most of it has already been said by much more capable minds than mine, and so for further opinion I defer to them. (Suggestions: "Disappointment with God" by Philip Yancey, "The Problem of Pain" by CS Lewis [haven't read it in it's entirety], and "Keeping Hope Alive"/"Five Things Everyone Should Know About Forgiveness" by Lewis Smedes to name a few).

3. "Church people" turned him away
This one is interesting to me. It is multifaceted. See, I live in the Bible Belt, where social stigmas are as strong as the sun on a July afternoon. It is very easy for the youth and adult populace alike to carry these stigmas beyond Scripture, to the pews; and from there, out into the world. Certain behaviors that aren't the social norm can be stigmatized and a consequential condemnation ensues (Notice, I did not saying Judging. People seem to have Judging confused with Condemning). Having long hair, listening to "Rock n' Roll," and having a different political affiliation are some examples. Instead of loving people outside of the Church and reaching out, we, in true form of our human nature, react in knee-jerk fashion to what we don't know. So, as for Chris's claim, there definitely is merit. But, I will add a disclaimer, which I also added to him. While certain things should make no impact on the way a Christ follower treats an unbeliever, there is a point when it's no longer about outreach. It becomes more about defending Scripture. For instance, on the issue of homosexuality, a Christian should reach out in love to a brother or sister that has issues with it. Just as Christ loved you, love one another. Yet, the line comes when talking about it's sinfulness. Whether it is sinful or not is skewed to treating someone with love and grace; it's about the truth of Scriptures. This opens Christians up for the "bigot" claim, and being judgmental, but it is simply not something that a Christian can rightly say is not sinful. So, there frames the situation. In some ways, looking past the sin to love the person is the core of what Christ taught; yet "sweeping it under the rug" is not at all what He taught.

Overall, these were my general answers to Chris. No series in apologetics to be sure; but the conversation didn't end with name-calling and fists flying. Maybe that's a start. Instead of trying to be the seed planter, seed grower, seed harvester... just be a level-headed, heartfelt friend.

Thanks for reading.