South Texas College of Law Annotations (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 37, No. 5, Ed. 1, April, 2005 Page: 3 of 8
8 pages : page 13 x 8.5 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
April 2005
Page 3
The GOP and Gay Marriage:
Impending Train Wreck or Much Ado about Nothing?
By Shari Goldsberry
Assistant Editor
A
Gays for many years
were associated with
the liberal agenda: radical
feminism, the black civil
rights movement, free
love, drug use, abortion-
on-demand as a civil right,
and other such largely
Democratic causes. How-
ever, over the last decade,
a rather startling change
has slowly taken shape.
The gay rights
movement has become a
conservative movement.
The party of conserva-
tives, the GOP, is sharply
divided on this subject. A
new Wall Street Journal/
NBC poll shows 48% of
Republicans support Con-
gressional legislation ban-
ning same-sex marriage,
while 47% of Republicans
oppose such legislation.
Don't believe the
gay movement is conser-
vative at its core? Think
back over the last ten
years, and ask what the
primary issues that gays
have fought for: Gays
want to:
- hold steady jobs without
fear of discrimination;
- join the clergy;
- not harassed in school;
- live in nice, respectable
communities without be-
ing kicked out or intimi-
dated;
- join the military openly
and fight for our country;
- join the boy scouts;
- settle down, have kids,
and raise families;
Throughout his-
tory, marriage has changed
with society. Those op-
posed to gay civil marriage
often talk about the "tra-
dition" of marriage. Most
have trouble articulating a
good reason not to allow
it, so are left only with the
flimsy argument that, "It
has always been this way."
If this argument sounds
familiar, it is. Segrega-
tionists used to say the
same thing during the
Civil Rights struggle four
decades ago.
Those opposed to
gay marriage never men-
tion how the institution of
marriage has changed dur-
ing the last 2,000 years.
As society has evolved,
becoming better educated
and more tolerant, the tra-
ditions and acceptable
definitions of marriage
have always been altered.
If marriage had not
changed throughout hu-
man history, it may well be
illegal today or at least
unconstitutional. Here are
a few examples of what
marriage has looked like
over the millennia:
- An adult man could
marry a 12 year-old girl.
- One could be forced into
a marriage arranged by
their parents.
- One would be forbidden
to marry outside their race.
- Wives were legally
treated as property to be
disposed of at will.
- One could not marry out-
side their religion.
- A person could not marry
someone from a different
economic class.
- Divorce was impossible,
no matter how physically
or emotionally abusive the
spouse.
- In Texas, not terribly long
ago, women had no right
to manage their own sepa-
rate property.
As society has
changed, so too has the
institution of marriage.
With better understanding,
the time will come for an-
other change to the insti-
tution. How that change
will take place is a ques-
tion still up in the air. Are
we to have the U.S. Su-
preme Court redefine mar-
riage? Are individual
states going to have their
state courts thrust gay mar-
riage upon an unsuspect-
ing public as happened in
Massachusetts?
Neither of these
options is desirable. Our
government is based on
dual sovereignty and mar-
riage has been regulated by
the states since the found-
ing of the country. Ideally,
gay marriage supporters
would gather enough citi-
zens to influence their
state legislatures to amend
the laws to alter the defi-
nition of marriage. The
body politic may not move
fast enough, however, for
the judiciary.
The U.S. Supreme
Court has declared mar-
riage a fundamental right
and highly scrutinized
state regulation in that
area. To maintain the sta-
tus quo, states will have to
come up with stronger,
more compelling reasons
for discriminating against
gays than anything Chuck
Rosenthal ineloquently
offered to the Court in
Lawrence v. Texas.
So what are the
conservative arguments in
favor of gay marriage?
According to The Econo-
mist, they are: Equality,
Children & Stability.
Equality
This is easy to un-
derstand. We have all
been bashed over the
skulls with this one for the
past 18 months or longer.
One argument against gay
marriage on equality
grounds is rooted in se-
mantics: marriage is the
union of a man and a
woman, and so by defini-
tion cannot be extended to
same-sex couples. Oh
sure, gay couples can live
together and love one an-
other, but cannot, on this
argument, be "married."
But this conceals the true
nature of marriage, which
is a binding commitment,
at once legal, social and
personal, between two
people to take on special
obligations to one another.
If gays want to make such
commitments to one an-
other, and to society, then
they should not be pre-
vented from doing so
while other adults, equiva-
lent in all other ways, are
allowed to do so.
Children
Children deserve
the stability of married
parents whether their par-
ents are gay or straight.
Religious political extrem-
ists often say, "Marriage is
about having children.
Gays cannot have chil-
dren, so gays cannot get
married." Gays are hav-
ing kids in greater and
greater numbers all the
time. Thirty-seven percent
of gay couples in Texas
have children versus fifty-
four percent of straight
couples. Religious ex-
tremists may frown on
gays all day long. Snort
and stomp, wag fingers
and yell, "bad homo! stop
that! bad homo!" But that
will not stop the trend as
we move to a more open
and tolerant society. Gays
are not going back into the
closet. Rather, they are
paying taxes, having fami-
lies and sending kids to
college just like everyone
else.
Stability
Marriage is boon
to the economy. The most
economically vulnerable
among us are singles, and
they are more likely to fall
into the arms of the wel-
fare state. Married people
live longer, more produc-
tive lives and are sick less
(and off the medicare
rolls). For society, the real
choice is between accept-
ing gay marriage or isolat-
ing gay members of the
American family. No in-
terest is served by choos-
ing the route of isolation.
The most hotly ar-
gued reason against gay
marriage is that it has been
interpreted to be in oppo-
sition to the Bible. Inlaw
school, we learn that ev-
erything is subject to inter-
pretation; in bible school,
we learn the Bible (which-
ever of the twenty-three
versions they are holding
up that day) is the word of
God, period, subject only
to interpretation of upper
church management. Pat
Robertson will tell you
what is in the bible, and
you will like it that way,
even if he is wrong, and he
is.
The Future
The GOP has
learned that if nothing else,
picking on gays is great for
fundraising. So expect
this issue to stay in the
news for as long as the
checks keep coming.
Social conserva-
tive extremists claim they
alone were responsible for
re-electing President
Bush, but, according to
Christie Todd Whitman,
that claim is overblown.
In her new book, It's My
Party Too, Whitman ar-
gues that if the Republican
Party caters to its "ideo-
logical zealots" on issues
like gay marriage and stem
cell research, it will alien-
ate mainstream voters and
risk marginalizing itself.
Just like the Democrat
party did when it collapsed
under the weight of its
own special interest
groups.
Instead, she says,
her party should return to
"the core Republican val-
ues" — "smaller govern-
ment, fiscal responsibility
and strong security" —
that unite conservatives
and moderates, "even
moderates in the Demo-
cratic Party." Whitman
insists that politics is not
just about winning elec-
tions but about solving
problems, and laments the
"harsh tenor" of our po-
litical culture, which is
"making it increasingly
difficult to hold rational
discussions about the most
important issues facing the
country."
Whitman has put
her money where her
mouth is by funding the
launch of a new political
group,
www.mypartytoo.com,
dedicated to refocusing the
GOP on the core values
that Lincoln had in mind
when the party was
founded: liberty, indi-
vidual responsibility, and
personal freedom.
Political lines for
2008 are being drawn to-
day. Whether the current
division within the GOP
will hold or mend is a
question that could affect
society for generations. Or
maybe not, the U.S. Con-
stitution has never been
interpreted to constrict
civil rights, only to expand
them. Time will tell.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Hennessey, Patrick J., III. South Texas College of Law Annotations (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 37, No. 5, Ed. 1, April, 2005, newspaper, April 2005; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth144567/m1/3/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting South Texas College of Law.