GAY MARRIAGE
Jun 7th 2006
Pope Benedict XVI, Australia's John Howard and Canada's Stephen Harper
have all grumbled in the past week about gay marriage. But America's
Senate has turned down an amendment to ban such unions
THE debate on gay marriage in America seems to crop up every election
year. On Wednesday June 7th the Senate turned down a constitutional
amendment that would have banned same-sex marriages. But the timing,
say sceptics, is suspicious. The debate came five months before
congressional elections in which Republicans, down in the polls, are
expected to take a kicking. A similar push on the amendment came before
George Bush's re-election in November 2004. By getting voters to worry
about threats to conservative values, Republican strategists possibly
helped send Mr Bush back to the White House.
Two years later, however, some things have changed. Mr Bush's approval
ratings and those of the Republicans are dismal. Resurrecting the
debate on gay marriage now risks looking like a cynical, even
desperate, move. Democrats have long seen the gay-marriage gambit as
one intended to galvanise the religious right. But the right seems less
motivated by the subject than before. Fiscal conservatives would rather
see Mr Bush veto a spending bill or two; others want Mr Bush to crack
down on illegal immigration. Instead, an amendment was resurrected
which had almost no hope of success.
Even some religious conservatives, to whom the amendment is desperately
important, are unhappy. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, a
religious-conservative outfit, fired up his supporters last week by
saying that the "forces of hell" are trying to undermine marriage. But
a spokesman for another group, the Family Research Council, has said of
the marriage amendment that "It's unfortunate that it's coming up just
in election years." Laura Bush, the president's wife, has spoken
against the measure, as has Mary Cheney, the vice-president's daughter,
who is a lesbian.
Federalism, as it has been for other divisive issues in America, could
be a saving grace in this debate. Only one state, Massachusetts, has
opted to allow full gay marriage. Some others recognise civil unions or
domestic partnerships, which offer many of the benefits of marriage
without calling it such. Many conservative states have banned gay
marriage and other same-sex unions. But the federal marriage amendment
would put an end to this variation, imposing Mississippi values on
Massachusetts.
NOT ONLY IN AMERICA
Federalism has also been trumped in another country trying to come to
grips with the issue. Australia's federal government under its prime
minister, John Howard, had passed legislation limiting marriage to that
between a man and a woman. But the Australian Capital Territory (in
effect, Canberra, the capital) recently passed a law that stated: "a
civil union is different to a marriage but is to be treated for all
purposes under territory law in the same way as a marriage"" Seeing a
bid to allow gay marriage with a linguistic trick, Mr Howard said on
Tuesday June 6th that the government would nullify Canberra's move.
Four days earlier Stephen Harper, Canada's Conservative leader, said
that he would give MPs a free vote on whether to re-examine a law
giving gays the right to marry in that country.
Western countries are divided on the issue. South Africa, Canada,
Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands allow full gay marriage, and many
countries in Europe have recognised rights enshrined in civil
partnerships. The United Kingdom last year, for example, granted gay
couples extensive rights of inheritance, tax benefits and more. But
Pope Benedict XVI fears an assault on traditional marriage, not least
in Catholic countries like Spain and Belgium. Even in Italy the
government is looking at creating some sort of nationwide rights for
gay couples. On Tuesday the Pope said he worried that there is an
"eclipse of God" happening in places where gay marriage, artificial
insemination and the like replace traditional nuclear families and
procreation.
But giving gay couples the chance to inherit, to share workplace
benefits, receive hospital visits and enjoy other mundane but important
rights that heterosexual couples take for granted should not cause
great alarm in democracies. Even in America the popularity of gay
marriage and civil unions is now beginning to rise. Some may fight to
stop it being called marriage, but, despite this week's grumbling, the
trend seems to be in the direction of giving gay couples nearly
everything but that magic word.
See this article with graphics and related items at http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=7032820&fsrc=RSS
No comments:
Post a Comment