Answers to Attacks on
the Courts
over Marriage
Decisions
Judges Coming Under
Fire over Gay Marriage
BBSNews commentary
from the Web, October 30, 2006
One of the first things that happened
after the New Jersey Supreme Court decided in favor of equal rights for gays was
a backlash against so-called "activist judges" and even President Bush got
involved when he said "Activist judges try to define America by court order" in
a case of the Executive openly undermining the Jucicial branch of the United
States for partisan political gain.
| |
 |
| |
Image Credit: J. Coyle. 2004-05-01. Used with
permission
Gay
Marriage Rally outside Safeco Field in Seattle, Washington, on May
1st, 2004. James Dobson, the founder of an evangelical group claimed
famously at the anti-gay rally inside the stadium, "If this [gay
marriage] happens, the culture war is over and everything associated
with it is lost." . |
The so-called "Family Research
Council," that really is mis-named given that they actually only care about one
type of narrowly defined "family" that barely resembles the spectrum of real
family life across the US, they through a spokesperson said in light of the
ruling "It follows the pattern of homosexual activists who witness their radical
agenda defeated at the ballot box yet advanced by activist judges." It's
hard to see a "radical agenda" in petitionng for equal protection under the law,
but is very easy to see the parallels between today's religious bigotry against
equal rights for gays and yesteryears extremely similar attacks against Civil
Rights for black folks.
Thankfully there is an organization that sheds some light on what a progressive
conservative can do to counter arguments by religiously enabled bigots who claim
some injury to "marriage" if equal treatment is extended to all people in the
United States fairly and equitably. Non-partisan Justice at Stake,
comprised of more than forty partners around the country put together five main
attacks against the judiciary and common-sense, easy to understand
Attack One -– Activist judges are legislating from the bench
Courts uphold our state and federal Constitutions and protect all of our rights
as Americans. They make sure that politicians are following the
Constitution and enable citizens to get a fair hearing and a day in court.
That is the duty of the courts under our Constitutional structure.
Attack Two -- This decision shows judges are not accountable
We ask our courts to make hard decisions, and not everyone will agree with every
outcome. But our courts are accountable to the Constitution and to the
law, not to political pressure from partisans or special interest groups.
This decision from the Supreme Court of New Jersey did not come out of the blue;
the court was reviewing a series of lower court decisions.
Attack Three –- The judges who decide controversial cases should be removed
from office
It’s okay to disagree with a decision, but it’s not acceptable to tear down our
system of checks and balances, and the courts that make it work. Calls for
the removal of any judge over a single decision are radical and anti-democratic.
Our democracy would not function if judges could be fired for a single ruling
out of a career that may include thousands of decisions.
Attack Four -- Courts are out of control because they do not follow public
opinion
We ask our judges to consider the facts and the law of each case that comes
before them, and to render fair and impartial decisions. Unlike
politicians, judges are not in office to keep promises or to read public opinion
polls.
Attack Five –- The Federal Marriage Amendment is the answer
Under pressure from some interest groups, some Washington politicians are trying
to amend our Constitution. The debate in Congress over an amendment to the
United State Constitution to narrowly define the marriage issue would slam the
courthouse door on thousands of Americans. Politicians in Washington, DC
with an eye on the next election should not be allowed to take away the right of
states to make and follow their own family law. We can’t allow politicians
to decide who gets a day in court.
In researching the response to the New Jersey decision we traveled the Web and
looked at some of the venomous attacks against gay rights in general and against
gay marriage in particular that are on various sites. We found some
additional arguments put forth by so-called "values" groups, actually a codeword
for bigotry against any values other than their own, that are just as easily
addressed by using fairness and reason and a basic attention to facts rather
than ideological histrionics. Here are some of the more commonly found
assertions and their suitable fact-based refutations we would like to add:
It's all because of the gay agenda
This dead dog has been whipped into frenzy after frenzy in election after
election and it really only resonates with the most bigoted and ignorant of the
"values" crowd. There is no gay agenda. That's the news. Gay
folks only want to enjoy a life free from discrimination and equal treatment
under the law just like most thinking sentient human beings. Say it with
us now, "there is no gay agenda."
It's against the Bible
While this argument might seem appropriate from a fundamentalist pulpet, it is a
poor cousin to the rule of law and US Constitutional norms that ensure equal
treatment of citizens under the law and constitution free from religious
influence. It's in that pesky First Amendment. Ever since Thomas
Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists it is well accepted in this country
that there is a wall of separation between church and state in the United
States. It exists for times just like these; to prevent one branch of
fundamentalist religion from controlling the rights and lives of others who
either do not share that religion or whose beliefs are not so narrow and
bigoted. US law is not biblical law. US law is bound to a federal
Constitution with enumerated rights that must be respected for all citizens
equally regardless of the existance of people who just don't like "them thar
gays."
But what about the children?
A classic argument is that children would be harmed in some way by equal rights
for gay people, especially in marriage. This is bunk on a scientific
level. According to a landmark study entitled "The Effects of Marriage,
Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of
Children" and published in the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in
June 2006, children raised by gay parents are perfectly fine:
"There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents
fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years
of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents'
sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and
behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as
a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents.
Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual
or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and
protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families."
Also noted in the study is the actual rise in tax revenue that would be realized
when full equality under the law is afforded to gay folks:
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined in 2004 that allowing civil
marriage for same-gender couples would have a positive effect on the federal
budget. The CBO found that allowing same-gender couples to marry would
increase federal income tax revenues by $400 million annually to the end of
2010, resulting largely from the "marriage penalty tax." Although Social
Security payments and spending on insurance coverage for partners of federal
workers would rise over time, other expenditures such as Medicaid and
Supplemental Security Income would decrease. The net result would be a
savings of nearly $1 billion per year."
Gays can just go to a lawyer and secure contractual agreements for property
and health matters
This is untrue. Also from the Pediatrics study:
"Opponents of same-gender civil marriage often suggest that the legal
recognition afforded by civil marriage for same-gender couples is unnecessary,
noting that all of the rights and protections that are needed can be obtained by
drawing up legal agreements with an attorney. In reality, same-gender
partners can secure only a small number of very basic agreements, such as power
of attorney, naming the survivor in one's will (at the risk of paying an
inheritance tax, which does not apply to heterosexual married couples), and
protecting assets in a trust. Even these agreements, however, represent
only the "best guesses" of the legal community and may not withstand challenges
from extended family members of the couple. Such challenges are not rare
given the lack of societal understanding and acceptance of homosexuality and
same-gender partnerships. Moreover, legal agreements cannot win for the
couple and their children access to the rights, benefits, and protections
afforded by the federal and state governments to heterosexual married couples."
Being Gay is a "lifestyle choice" let 'em revert then they can marry
Barring the obvious, that most people simply don't choose to be ostracised, spit
on, beat up, discriminated against, murdered, called the most venomous of slurs
and epithets and isolated. Those that claim that there is some glamour in
all of that are simply delusional, ignorant or both. There is however a
scientific basis to believe that being gay is not a choice. It is not
changable by possibly dangerous "reparation therapy" and the American
Psychological Association makes this clear in their public literature answering
the question is being gay a choice:
"No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual
orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior
sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings,
psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that
can be voluntarily changed."
And on the notion that gay people can be "cured":
"No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some
homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation
through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or
religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is
not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable."
Conclusion
Religious groups often use gay bashing as a theme to whip up anti-gay hysteria
and this results in protests. Politicians noticed and they have learned
they can use gay issues as a wedge between progressives and those that would use
religion to determine policy. No politician is immune to the temptation,
witness President Bush and his mention of "activist" judges at the beginning of
this article.
Inciting people to rail against judges for their lawfully rendered decisions
undermines America's balance between the Executive, the Judicial and the
Legislative branches. It is counter-productive and could lead to violence
done against judges by religiously motivated ideologues upset that a ruling does
not comport with their narrow extremist religious views instilled into them by
clergy who have very little regard for tolerance.
The GOP has long exploited religious anti-gay bias as a get out the vote tool,
and hopefully since they have been exposed as simply using these groups to get
votes and money while making fun of them behind their backs based upon the
revelations of David Kuo's "Tempting Faith", they will make these voters a
little less likely to vote for GOP incumbents.
And just as hopefully many Democrats, progressive Republicans, Independents and
third party candidate supporters will strive for a better and more tolerant
balance that stops obsessing with bashing a class of people and judges, and vote
for people who will force government to act in a more secular way with science
and reason, and much less intolerance fomented by extreme right-wing religious
groups.
That would be an enormous step forward for the United States and movement can
begin in that direction in a little more than a week during the 2006 mid-term
elections.
|
