This page was last updated on July 24, 2004.

The salute “To the 50 U.S. senators who voted to kill legislation that would have changed the Constitution to ban gay marriage” demonstrates liberal hypocrisy.  Liberals are simply using the “states rights” stance to hide their true position.

Before I proceed, some people are likely to say this isn’t a liberal vs. conservative issue so I shouldn’t equate being liberal with being in favor of homosexual “marriage.”  If that were true, the July 14, 2004, vote to force cloture of a filibuster on the amendment would not have been along party lines.  Of the 48 who voted for cloture, 45 were Republicans.  Of the 50 who voted against, 44 were Democrats.  Conveniently, Senators Kerry and Edwards were not present, but I think we know how they would have voted.

Usually the only time a liberal brings up the issue of states rights is to claim it is code for segregation.  That’s why I find it funny that liberals claim to oppose a constitutional definition of marriage on the basis of states rights.  When it comes to education, regulation, roads, welfare, et cetera, liberals don’t believe in states rights.  In the case of homosexual marriage, however, liberals have suddenly found an issue they claim should be up to each state.

Conservatives tend to support states rights.  In an effort to bolster their position, liberals like to claim conservatives who support the Constitutional definition of marriage are the hypocrites.  Are conservatives hypocrites for taking this position?

Supporters of homosexual marriage claim the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) championed and signed by President Clinton in 1996 takes care of the problem by stipulating that states need not recognize homosexual marriages of other states.  This is the basis for the states rights stance.  Are homosexual marriage supporters correct about this point?

We need to look at the Constitution to answer these questions.

Article IV, section 1, of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that, “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.”  This means that it takes only one state to legalize homosexual marriage to make it the law of the land.  Though a state may decline to marry homosexuals, it must recognize the legal marriage of homosexuals married in another state.

Therefore, the DOMA conflicts with the Constitution, and the Constitution always takes precedence when the Constitution and a law conflict.  As a result, most objective observers believe the U.S. Supreme Court would declare the DOMA unconstitutional.

Homosexual marriage supporters say the second sentence of Article IV, section 1, makes DOMA constitutional.  I have to admit that’s the way I read the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has a habit “interpreting” the Constitution in “creative” ways.  For example, discrimination based on race is clearly unconstitutional, yet the Supreme Court supports many affirmative action laws.

All I discussed here were the legal pros and cons of the states rights argument.  I didn’t get into the practical problem of how the country would deal with differing marriage definitions.  In just one example, how should a company deal with employees who move among states with differing marriage definitions?  Will homosexual couples be on equal footing with heterosexual couples with respect to adoption?  What if a state decides polygamy is OK?  What about marriage of close relatives?  I’m sure there are a bunch of scenarios I haven’t considered.  Our Founding Fathers recognized the inherent problems of situations like this and is why they included Article IV, section 1, in the Constitution.  For something as fundamental and key to everyday life as marriage, the United States needs a single definition, not 51.

The salute said, “We agree with those who argue the proposed amendment and other gay-related maneuvering have more to do with election-year politics than marriage.”  The Times needs its memory refreshed.  The amendment didn’t become a serious issue until late last year when 1) the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (4-3) creatively interpreted that commonwealth’s constitution and legislated a homosexual marriage right and, 2) earlier this year when various local jurisdictions throughout the country started issuing homosexual marriage licenses in violation of state laws.  Those people who support homosexual marriage picked the timing, not those who support the traditional definition of marriage.

On a side note, the legal joining of two homosexuals of the same sex is no more marriage than the legal joining of two heterosexuals of the same sex.  Calling it a marriage doesn’t make it a marriage.

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.