Editorial: redefine marriage

On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court began hearing arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, a case that will decide the fate of Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that, in 2008, limited the right to marry in California to heterosexual couples. Testimony being presented from both sides will deal with the constitutionality of the proposition — whether or not Prop 8 constitutes a violation of constitutionally guaranteed equal rights — but will also address the federal Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996. DOMA, which legally defines marriage in the U.S. as the union of a man and a woman, will be discussed in its own case, United States v. Windsor, in the Supreme Court today.

Although decisions on the trials probably won’t be made until later this year, their repercussions could have far-reaching effects on the institution of marriage — if the Supreme Court justices decide to rule broadly, that is. In the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, the justices have the ability to uphold Prop 8 or strike it down. If they do the latter, however, they will either oppose the proposition narrowly, on the grounds that it violates rights won by gay couples in state court, or broadly, on the grounds that denying gay couples the right to marry is unconstitutional. The first would affect the issue of equal marriage in California only, whereas the second would establish equal marriage rights nationwide.

Several justices seem hesitant to make a blanket decision on same-sex marriage. Justice Anthony Kennedy, for example, whom the Los Angeles Times identifies as the likely swing vote on the case, has suggested that the court could simply make a narrow ruling on California’s Proposition 8.

“We have five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history or more,” Kennedy said to the court Tuesday, referring to the short amount of time that has passed since some American states began allowing same-sex marriage.

Others, however, feel that the time is now to act on eliminating discriminatory legislation. Attorney Theodore Olson, who argued against Prop 8, said the Supreme Court should look to the landmark 1967 Loving v. Virginia case, which made states’ bans on interracial marriage illegal.

In contemporary society, it should be acceptable to redefine marriage based on making our society more equal, and in a democratic country, we should focus on giving every person equal rights and opportunities. Redefining marriage should not be cause for panic — the Loving case redefined marriage in a way that is, today, virtually universally accepted. Additionally, in the United States, there are many federal legal benefits to being married, such as filing joint tax returns and the ability to give some gifts tax-free to a spouse, family health insurance plans, visitation rights in hospitals and jails and immigration benefits. Every couple that makes the commitment of marriage should receive these legal benefits, including same-sex couples.

Questioning of the legality of same-sex marriage because it represents a departure from traditional practices indicates a dangerous flaw in logic. Regardless of the fact that legal same-sex marriages are new to our society, legalizing them in all states is the fair and just course of action. There should be no place for moral panic over newer forms of legal marriage in this country, because such a panic implies that there could be something destructive inherent to non-heterosexual marriages, which is untrue. Applying the idea that something has been done a certain way for thousands of years and is therefore dangerous to change is the kind of logic that allows for the continuance of a variety of discrimination.

The court may not always want to make a ruling that will upset millions of Americans. But society has become more accepting of gay marriage in the past several years. About 60 percent of Americans think that the federal government should recognize existing same-sex marriages and that these couples should be given the same federal benefits as heterosexual married couples. This number has sharply risen in the past ten years. But the court should discontinue this trend of denying fundamental rights until a majority of Americans are prepared to grant it.

The best outcome of this case would be for same-sex marriage to be allowed in every state; the Supreme Court should rule broadly in favor of marriage equality.