Should the right to create laws on gay marriage reside at the state level or the federal level?

Federal

1 of 13

by Dr. Michael Smith

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Laws concerning gay marriage have raised issues in America over whether these considerations should be decided on the state or federal level. Several states have passed laws allowing gay marriages, only to have them overstepped by referendum or court rulings, and the issue in many places is still very much in limbo. It is apparent that in order for gay couples to get equal rights, action must be taken on the federal level.

A careful scrutiny of American history shows that when issues affecting a small constituency are under consideration, the only fair and correct way to ensure those rights is for federal action to occur. Two clear instances, both concerning the rights of a particular segment of our society, show how important federal action was in achieving the desired effect.

The major concern is whether equal rights belong to the few and the privileged, or to everyone, regardless of race, color, creed, or sexual orientation. America from its inception has faced historical tests of whether rights were universal or for a select few. In every instance, the issues waere always decided on the federal level.

Slavery was an issue that tested the mettle of America since its inception. While it divided the country, even the northerners did not hate slavery with the conviction of change. The issue divided families, towns, states, and even churches, as Christians in many instances provided a foundation to justify such a vile institution. The battle was staged much like the present battle for gay rights. The issues were much construed by those who wanted to keep the institution intact. Exaggerated language suggested the horrors of having a world where slaves were free, and fear of what might be was used to sway the simple minded into believing in a world that would be intolerable.

When President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation even he did not envision ending all of slavery, but he soon realized that it must be total freedom or nothing. No compromise could fix the problems, or meet the needs that were faced by the nation. When the war was done, slavery ended and freedom for all became a reality. The Thirteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution granted freedom from slavery.

At the turn of the century women faced a similar situation with their press for universal suffrage. As the battle raged, again fear and half-truths were used to intimidate and propose a world of what might happen if women won the right to vote. The possibility of states approving the right to vote proved non-existent, and once again federal action was necessary. The Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted, granting the right to vote to women.

Many have said that gay rights are the last bastion of prejudice in the US. As in the other battles, the forces on both sides of the issue raise the issues, and some use fear and intimidation, and declare that if gays are given the right of marriage, a whole host of evils will accompany such a move. The anti-gay forces demonize the homosexual as a child molester and pervert, ignoring studies which site that most child molesters are heterosexual. Religion rallies its forces through fear of what gay marriage will do to their teachings and faith. No compromise between the two sides are possible, as seen in the recent move in California in which in a single referendum overrode the courts of California and ended the right of gays to marry.

It is apparent that for homosexuals to gain their individual rights as Americans, federal legislation must be enacted to ensure that, like other segments of the population, they, too, can have the same rights enjoyed by others. The gaining of rights on the states level is both too slow, and not guaranteed to get results. If history is to be our guide, the federal government needs to act on this pressing issue to ensure it happens.

Learn more about this author, Dr. Michael Smith.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.