Gay Marriage "Made in the USA"
Published in La Presse
(Canada) on 30 March 2013
by Andre Pratte (link to original)
The debate on same-sex marriage is a difficult one all around. Even among those whom we would not suspect of prejudice, opinions can differ, just as was the case this week when the same dilemma that split our own, [Canada's] Supreme Court in 2004, confronted the U.S. Supreme Court.
The highest U.S. tribunal has been called to adjudicate on an amendment introduced to the California constitution in 2008, an amendment which limits the institution of marriage to unions between a man and a woman. This text was adopted following a referendum [on Proposition 8] won by those challenging homosexual marriage.
Aside from defending the traditional definition of marriage as the best option for encouraging the upbringing of children within a stable family, supporters of the amendment point out arguments regarding democracy and the federal nature of the U.S. According to their attorney, it is better to let the debate continue on political turf rather than bring it before the judges:
“Decisions taken following a democratic process are more likely to be widely accepted than those taken through other measures.”
Furthermore, since marriage is an individual state issue — unlike in Canada where it is a shared decision — why would the Supreme Court impose a unique solution for the whole country?
“Our federal system of government was conceived to allow for a diversity of approaches towards difficult and uncertain social questions,” emphasized [defense] lawyer Charles J. Cooper.
In the eyes of the attorney representing gay couples, upholders of "Prop 8" are simply looking to exclude homosexuals from a fundamental social institution:
“Prop 8 grants to those prejudiced against homosexual relationships the powerful support of the Californian Constitution.”
Arguments about democracy and federalism only aim to justify a discriminatory action.
While the U.S. federal system allows the states, in several situations, to serve as "democratic laboratories, our Constitution does not allow them to lead social experiments on the fundamental right of citizens,” declared Theodore Olson.*
Taking inspiration from the magistrates' remarks during the hearing, informed observers are not expecting a landmark change, whichever way it goes. Whatever happens, it seems clear to us that in our neighboring U.S., just like here at home, homosexuals should have access to marriage. Even if they are accorded all the concrete benefits of marriage — as is the case in California — gay couples are not receiving equal treatment if they cannot take advantage of the social recognition this old institution confers.
*Editor's note: Accurately translated, the quotes in this article could not be verified.
The highest U.S. tribunal has been called to adjudicate on an amendment introduced to the California constitution in 2008, an amendment which limits the institution of marriage to unions between a man and a woman. This text was adopted following a referendum [on Proposition 8] won by those challenging homosexual marriage.
Aside from defending the traditional definition of marriage as the best option for encouraging the upbringing of children within a stable family, supporters of the amendment point out arguments regarding democracy and the federal nature of the U.S. According to their attorney, it is better to let the debate continue on political turf rather than bring it before the judges:
“Decisions taken following a democratic process are more likely to be widely accepted than those taken through other measures.”
Furthermore, since marriage is an individual state issue — unlike in Canada where it is a shared decision — why would the Supreme Court impose a unique solution for the whole country?
“Our federal system of government was conceived to allow for a diversity of approaches towards difficult and uncertain social questions,” emphasized [defense] lawyer Charles J. Cooper.
In the eyes of the attorney representing gay couples, upholders of "Prop 8" are simply looking to exclude homosexuals from a fundamental social institution:
“Prop 8 grants to those prejudiced against homosexual relationships the powerful support of the Californian Constitution.”
Arguments about democracy and federalism only aim to justify a discriminatory action.
While the U.S. federal system allows the states, in several situations, to serve as "democratic laboratories, our Constitution does not allow them to lead social experiments on the fundamental right of citizens,” declared Theodore Olson.*
Taking inspiration from the magistrates' remarks during the hearing, informed observers are not expecting a landmark change, whichever way it goes. Whatever happens, it seems clear to us that in our neighboring U.S., just like here at home, homosexuals should have access to marriage. Even if they are accorded all the concrete benefits of marriage — as is the case in California — gay couples are not receiving equal treatment if they cannot take advantage of the social recognition this old institution confers.
*Editor's note: Accurately translated, the quotes in this article could not be verified.