Gallup misleads, Massachusetts supports, President opposes, and Democrats split.
by Michael Komitee

Courts Ignoring the People?
     “There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” The words of Benjamin Disraeli, first said years ago, are as true today as they were then.
     The Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that it was not enough to confer the same rights and privileges to civil unions that are granted to marriages, but that homosexual couples must be granted the right to be married, not only in law but also in name.
     Notable polling group, The Gallup Organization, has recently conducted a poll in response to the Court’s ruling. Between January ninth and eleventh, those who were polled were asked three questions: “Do you think homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?” Forty-nine percent said that homosexual relations should not be legal while only forty-six percent of those asked thought relations between any consenting adults should be legal.
     When asked “Would you favor or oppose a law that would allow homosexual couples to legally get married, or do you not have an opinion either way.” Fifty-three percent opposed such a law. It is clear that the majority of those polled would not support homosexual marriages in name.
     The third question is where the problem arises. People were asked, “Would you favor or oppose a law that would allow homosexual couples to legally form civil unions, giving them some of the legal rights of married couples, or do you not have an opinion either way?” The fact that forty-one percent of those polled would oppose such a law is misleading. Since only some of the legal rights of marriage would be attributed to civil unions, homosexuals who could support equal civil unions along with people who oppose homosexuality could oppose the law.
     The Gallup Organization failed to ask this critical question; would people support a civil union that would confer all of the legal rights of marriage upon consenting homosexual adults?
     Some would see this as the Supreme Court of Massachusetts going against the will of the people, and perhaps that is precisely what they are doing. The job of the courts is different than that of the legislature. While the legislature’s job is to draft law in support of the will of the people, the court has to compare law to superior law like the constitution and case law. The court has historically favored the rights of minorities when there is a conflict with the will of the majority like in the civil rights movement.

    Why make a Federal Case out of it?
     Statistics aside, I am troubled by this obvious change in the Republican Party. Historically speaking, republicans have been for states rights and have opposed the transference of states rights to the Federal government. When White House spokesman Scott McClellan was pressed on the issue he confirmed that, “What he [President Bush] has said is that if necessary he will do what is legally needed to protect the sanctity of marriage.”
     What may be considered necessary is a Federal Constitutional Amendment, which Bush is known to support, known as the Federal Marriage Amendment. The amendment states, “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.”
     There already exists a constitutional amendment to deal with marriage. It is the tenth, and was drafted and signed in 1791. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Let the people decide for themselves. Let the states chose what they’ll recognize.
    
Decisions decisions…
     As stated earlier, it has been hinted that President George Bush supports the Federal Marriage Amendment.
     Senator and leading presidential hopeful John Kerry seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. To court the conservative vote, he has “consistently opposed gay marriage.” To maintain the liberal vote, he has also consistently rejected legislation to that effect. He is said to support civil unions, but not marriage between consenting homosexual adults.
     Howard Dean, who pledged to withdraw from the Democrat Primaries should he lose Wisconsin … and shortly thereafter stated his intention to go back on that pledge, boasts a record where he has signed into law legislation that made civil unions recognized by the state of Vermont. He opposes same-sex marriages but thinks that it is a state issue and not a federal issue.
     John Edwards believes that “gay and lesbian Americans are entitled to equal respect and dignity under our laws.” He “personally” does not support gay marriage but he respects the rights of the individual states to make their own decisions. He openly opposes the constitutional amendment.
     The people have a decision to make.

Last edited by zim on 02-12-2004 at 07:25 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged