A recent Post-ABC News poll found that American support for gay marriage is unchanging, and fairly split. The study found that 47% of people think that gay marriage should be legal, whereas 50% of people think it should be illegal. However two thirds of people said they supported civil unions. Quite interestingly, 65% of people under the age of 30 said they supported gay marriage as a legal institution.
So what really is holding us back from legalizing gay marriage. Is the difference between a civil union and a marriage a crucial one? Should the government declare gay marriage legal when marriage is, in fact, a traditionally religious institution? We do, after all, live in a country that has an established "separation of church and state" policy. Does the government even have the right to legalize gay marriage? Is a Civil Union satisfactory, or does everyone deserve the right to a marriage?
In his State of the Union address, Obama swore he would put an end to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military. Do the results of this poll reflect an increase in the chances of that happening? Or does the fact that support from gay marriage is unchanging signify that people will also have unchanging and inflexible attitudes toward the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
And what about the obvious differing in support for gay marriage among age groups. Once the population has aged some, and new thinkers have replaced those currently in the "18-30" age group, will support for gay marriage become undeniable? Will legislation supporting gay marriage get passed? Or is the difference of opinions due to age, and not generation? Will those currently in the "18-30" age group that so clearly supports gay marriage get older and change their minds?
2 comments:
Perhaps Marriage is a traditionally religious institution, but considering the fact that it comes with certain legal benefits, it is a civil institution now. The Civil Union, while certainly an improvement over past policies, is virtually the same as "separate but equal" and is very reminiscent of miscegenation laws.
If we want to uphold the "sanctity" of marriage, then marriage should no longer provide legal benefits, and be handed over wholly to the churches. Until then, it is a civil institution, and it isn't the place of the government to enforce a religious moral code.
I hope that when the more conservative generation leaves office, perhaps we can implement better policy. In 100 years I am sure that the gay marriage issue will be taught in school as parallel to the Civil Rights Movement, as a group of oppressed people unlocking the bigoted shackles that hold them.
I agree with the idea that, though the pendulum swinging in reverse may be a slow process, that we're gearing up to have a majority of Americans for legalizing gay marriage, and removing other prejudiced policies such as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I think that the 48/52 split on Prop 8 in 2008, for instance, will be flipped in fewer than 10 years.
The question this debate always raises for me is: What business does the government have telling me who I can marry? This is why I think Sam's points are so valid and apt. Ignoring for a moment (though they may be relevant) marriage's origins, where we are today is the government running a sizable chunk of what a marriage is. And because this is the case, I think it is inappropriate for the government to be involved in a citizen's life by controlling whom he or she may marry. It's analogous (though not on a comparable scale, of course) to government regulation of sex in 1984 and Brave New World, in my opinion.
Post a Comment