Next Stop: Gay Marriage?

Some who follow politics will remember the debates over gay marriage in the Senate during the summer of 2004. At that moment, President Bush encouraged senators to preserve a traditional definition of marriage and family by means of federal amendment. Senators wrangled over the issue of the Federal Marriage Amendment in July, and it ultimately failed due to the wayward votes of a handful of Republicans, including one-time GOP nominee John McCain. Looking back on that debate, we receive an intriguing lesson in failed promises. At that time, Democrats and moderate Republicans opposed a federal amendment because they claimed the issue was already resolved by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed overwhelmingly by Congress during the Clinton Administration. This law, they claimed was more than sufficient to protect a traditional definition of marriage, and social conservatives ultimately lost that battle.

Now, we fast-forward six years. After a number of amendments protecting marriage were passed during the 2004 and 2006 elections, a reverse trend has begun to occur. States like Iowa have allowed for same-sex marriage, but that paled in comparison to a decision made by a judge in Massachusetts yesterday. Judge Joseph Tauro struck down DOMA as unconstitutional, noting that marriage is to be strictly defined by the states. The decision was hailed as a major victory by same-sex marriage advocates, and the DOMA case will likely be heard by the US Supreme Court, prompting a nationwide look into the issue. This court battle will likely occur alongside the fights in federal court in California over Proposition 8.

The end result confirms what social conservatives feared in 2004, which was that the only way to protect marriage was to define it constitutionally through the purpose of amendment. In many ways, marriage in some shape or form deserves some sort of constitutional clarification. Family was clearly important to the Founders, but the definition of family was taken for granted and not called into question. Although the State has taken over many responsibilities over the course of time, the family remains an important element of American civil society, culturing children toward playing a productive role in society. Whatever the definition of family that exists, it needs to be set and acknowledged by the state. In the increasingly mobile American society, it's difficult to conceive of a permanent solution of different states with different actions. In many ways, liberal states simply won't allow it. Look at issues like same-sex marriage and healthcare. Once Massachusetts has adopted a particular position, they seek to have their interpretation adopted one way or another by every other state. The end result is that marriage will be defined, either by a legislator or a court, at the federal level.

I, for one, want to see Congress tackle the issue. For too long, Congress has simply exported difficult issues to the court system. When difficult issues like abortion have surfaced, Congress has often willingly taken a backseat to justices who have never been subjected to a popular vote. This has given the court a power never anticipated by the Founders. The Founders actually thought the courts would be the weakest branch, since they could neither raise armies or curry popular favor. They were only supported by the power of their judgments, though the courts are now considered 'untouchable.'

I also hope that conservatives will stand together and attempt to resurrect the American family by giving it a traditional definition. Although homosexuality itself cannot and should not be made illegal, marriage is a social institution and social institutions are a reflection of a society's values. America's clearest way to reflect its social values is by defining marriage as a traditional home between a man and a woman. American families are suffering, given the high divorce rates and technological changes of the present day. It's difficult for parents to retain control of their kids who are increasingly in touch with the outside world from an early age, and families often are breaking apart. Instead of simply adopting resolutions which could (and likely would) make these problems worse, we should take the initiative to improve this institution. Without the family, children are only left with the State to culture them into society.

Thus, the recent court ruling on DOMA provides conservatives with several lessons. One is that same-sex marriage will likely have to be resolved, one way or the other, at the federal level. It cannot simply be engaged at the state level through state amendment protections. Another is that the moderates and liberals misled the public on the strength of the DOMA law. No law of Congress is protected from an increasingly activist judiciary. If social conservatives care about this issue, they would be wise to not be fooled again.