An organization dedicated to opposing same-sex marriages last week kicked off a multi-state campaign in Maine. It marked the continuation of a debate over individual rights and traditional values that is moving inexorably forward.
The National Organization for Marriage hopes to tip the balance against marriage equality for same-sex couples with rallies across the East, Midwest and South this summer.
Its “one man, one woman” campaign was cheered by about 100 supporters in Augusta. This state is the site of the last major victory by traditionalists: The National Organization for Marriage contributed nearly $2 million to last fall’s successful campaign to overturn Maine’s Marriage Equality law.
Since then, however, courts have continued to be skeptical of arguments against same-sex marriage. No one has yet articulated a strong case that allowing someone to marry a member of the same sex harms the institution of marriage or the public interest.
Meanwhile, the arguments against a same-sex marriage ban are compelling. They were most recently reviewed by U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro, who found that the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally discriminated against legally married same-sex couples in Massachusetts. Marriage is heavily favored by the tax code and Tauro noted that more than 1,000 federal laws are affected by the Defense of Marriage Act.
Support for that discriminatory measure has ebbed since it passed in 1996 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. As advocacy over this issue has intensified, more and more people have realized that broadening the freedom to marry poses no real threat.
Civil discussion can only help advance this cause. The National Organization for Marriage is performing a good service by promoting public discussion of the implications of same-sex marriage. On the day it stopped in Augusta, Gov. John Baldacci joined a group of advocates for marriage equality to raise counter-arguments.
We hope that a new consensus emerges through such discussions, guided by court rulings and state—by-state initiatives to broaden the benefits of marriage. Decisions in federal and state courts have already laid a strong foundation for marriage equality. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will consider the issue, perhaps via California’s Proposition 8 case.
It’s likely to be one of those cases where justices are greatly influenced by previous decisions and public opinion. Those who believe who believe in marriage equality should miss no opportunity to list the ways that a broader definition of marriage would help individuals and serve the public interest.
Comments? Contact Managing Editor Nick Cowenhoven at nickc@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
