Whether it's protests at the Arizona capitol, the Massachusetts' approval of "civil unions" for same-sex couples or the flare of news reports, you've probably been doused with some kind of gay marriage sentiment. It only seemed to intensify when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom and California Attorney General Bill Lockyer disregarded Gov. Arnold's decree to "stahp!"
The issue boiled over last week when Newsom said the California Constitution guarantees due process and equality, thus entitling same-sex couples to marry. Coined a "cultural crisis" by the Washington Times, San Francisco residents joined other homosexual couples flocked to marry- Rosie O'Donnell being the most prominent. Then, like boils, protests broke out across the United States. Dotting downtowns with picketing crowds, each side of the debate argued its own legitimacy.
A prime ingredient in this cultural heartburn is church-state friction. While religion has no administrative power in the state, many government officials on all heights of the totem pole dub themselves Christians. Thus, they inject Christian morals into governmental policy, resulting in Christian-based laws that blanket a multicultural nation.
While considering religion, it's also good to leaf through some American history: the ultimate barometer to marriage changes. In reality, the gay marriage debacle is a relative newborn in a country swamped with nuptial issues. Just over one hundred years ago, it was ghastly for a
Catholic and Protestant to marry. And until 1967, interracial marriage was a societal taboo.
Further, it wasn't too long ago that woman, when married, were once considered the husband's property. And it's the same now: gay marriage, like every moral issue in the United States, frightens some and delights others.
In our materialistic society, it's surprising the spotlight on the economy frequently flickers. Sure, it's a bulleted item on the gargantuan agendas of each presidential candidate, but so are those issues of morality. The Patriot Act, affirmative action, Electoral College reform, racism concerns, and naturally, the definition of marriage are not prime economic troubles. However, because of our unrivaled diversity, they often relegate economics to the backburner.
It's tough for politicians too. Take President Bush, for example. Straddling the Democrat-Republican border, he expands Medicare and endorses the temporary worker program. Still, he berates gay-marriage. Although he may confuse Republicans, a State Press comic last week illustrated a bashful Bush pandering to the outspoken religious right. A margin on America's bell curve yet an outspoken interest group, they express themselves as if they represent everyone.
In some ways they do. Half of Californians oppose same-sex marriage. Tinkering with semantics, even Democratic candidate John Kerry stands against marriage but supports "civil unions." He bears the modern American notion of equal protection under the law, meaning that same-sex couples would receive the socioeconomic benefits of marriage without being married.
At the head of the Democrat's horse race, Kerry cannot afford to perturb right-of-center voters who play hopscotch over party lines in elections.
Still, like all nuptial dilemmas, progress will probably expand marriage to same-sex couples, moving from CNN into history textbooks. In 50 years, students will cock their eyebrows when reading about something they consider completely normal was once forbidden. Like the
discussion of women's suffrage, inter-immigrant issues and today's taken-for-granted cultural norms, the gay marriage problem is just another American hiccup.
Chris Kark is a reporter for the Web Devil. Reach him at christopher.kark@asu.edu.
