Homosexual Marriage and Equality
In the midst of war and economy decline, Americans are being thrown a curveball that may change the way of their culture is forever; the idea of legalizing homosexual marriage. Frankly speaking, this idea was once new, strange, and deemed unnatural and it is now one of the biggest social controversies in our country. However, United States was built on the idea of federalism; the separation of power between federal and state government along with ideas of civil liberties and rights. Vermont is a state where homosexual couples can legally be grant civil unions, the closest thing to legalized marriage. San Francisco is the only city in the nation that allows homosexual marriages to be legalized, an issue taken up by the new mayor Newsom. Would these two deeds be said to be separation of federal and state power at its best, or perhaps, an additional way to draw a larger chaos? We will examine each idea of federalism, the idea of status quo, and the idea of compromising to get in a deeper understanding of this issue. Ultimately, same sex marriage should be legalized for they are not asking for special treatment, but for the right of equality.
Both sides have argued their cases with ideas of federalism in mind. Many scholars have come up with solutions of solving this deadlock issue using what they think is federalism, yet their ideas of federalism are so drastically different. So when do we draw the line of separation of power? According to Stanley Kurtz, con gay marriage, states "true federalism demands that we strike a balance between the rights of states in a culturally divided nation." At the same time, Jonathan Rauch states "Stripping away states' power to pass same sex marriage will also advocate stripping away state courts' power to interpret state constitutions." Stanley Kurtz's statement, on its own, sounds the most righteous and accurate until the idea of the Federal Marriage Amendment, a legislation defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman in the constitution is said within the same context. Many have reacted and said that the FMA is not federalism because it does not give states any right to react to this situation, but in the FMA makers' eyes, it is federalism because the conservative Family Research Council attacks the amendment for not denying homosexual couples some marriage benefits. Federalism according to the conservative Family Research Council means giving benefits to those "who aren't allowed to have them" and that balances between the rights of states.
Federalism is much more than that idea; federalism is recognizing the power and responsibilities of the states as stated in the Constitution and giving them the right to decide on how domestic issues such as marriage, divorce, and even on how cosmetic surgeries, should be treated. Two thirds of American citizens feel closer to their local government believing since that they are closer in location; they are more...