Recently, two notable Wisconsin Republicans, U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson and Gov. Scott Walker, clarified their positions on the subject of gay marriage. When put on the spot, both politicians took the stance that gay marriage is a matter of “states’ rights.”
In an interview with Fox 6 News in Milwaukee, Johnson said, “From my standpoint, it’s really a states’ rights issue.” Walker told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “In general, my preference is that things are left to the states and not dictated by the federal government.”
Well, the first thing to notice is that this is somewhat of a dramatic shift in the conservative party line on gay marriage. Both Walker and Johnson refrained from making any statements on the grounds of religion or morality but rather took the perspective of state politics. While right-wing politicians have often approached the issue of gay marriage as a fundamentally religious issue, Walker and Johnson have moved in a different direction.
While I don’t agree with either Walker or Johnson, I give them credit for leaving religion out of the discussion.
The most blatantly untrue thing every American student learns about his or her government in elementary school is that it operates under the principle of “separation of church and state.” To name a few particularly obvious violations of this policy: If you look at a quarter, you will find the phrase, “in God we trust,” liquor stores are closed on Sundays and, until recently, the Pledge of Allegiance (which, of course, includes the stanza “one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all”) was recited in public schools.
And yet, nowhere is the lack of separation between church and state in American politics more glaring than in the ongoing debate on legalizing gay marriage. Opponents of gay marriage who cite the “sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman” make an argument that is explicitly religious. Actually, opposition to gay marriage in American politics is entirely religious – there is no secular argument against it.
Ironically, the legalization of gay marriage in America, or in certain states for that matter, has no impact on religious institutions. Whether or not gay couples are allowed to be legally married, religious organizations will still be free to decide who among their followers can marry whom. In light of this, arguments against legalizing gay marriage, which are grounded in a religious understanding of marriage, seem to fall flat.
For these reasons, I’m glad Walker and Johnson left religion out of the discussion when they addressed gay marriage. From a political standpoint, religion has little to do with it. However, their analysis of gay marriage as a matter of states’ rights leaves much to be desired.
For one thing, the claim that a political issue is really a matter the states decide is, at least historically speaking, the obstructionist’s last stand in any debate on civil rights. One consultation with a U.S. history textbook will show that when all other claims to legitimacy had been debunked, those who opposed civil rights–for instance, states in the deep South in the late 1950s–tend to play the states’ rights card. By framing the gay marriage as a matter of states’ rights, Walker and Johnson seem to be resorting to obstructionism rather than putting forward a serious argument.
Regardless of the legal status of gay marriage, gay couples will still live together in committed relationships and thus for most intents and purposes be married. There’s really nothing politicians can do to prevent this. What is at stake is whether or not they will receive the same sorts of government benefits legally married straight couples do. For instance, in states where gay marriage is illegal, gay couples are prevented from receiving tax deductions afforded to legally married couples.
I find this morally problematic. In states where gay marriage has not been legalized, gay couples are, in essence, taxed for being gay. This could be accurately described as economic discrimination on the basis of sexuality. This is my disagreement with Walker and Johnson: While they both think states should have the right to prevent gay couples from receiving the economic benefits extended to their straight peers, I don’t. To me, that seems intolerant and unreasonable.
If states are left to choose whether or not to legalize gay marriage, the most likely result will be a division of states into two categories: those in which gay marriage is legal, and those in which it isn’t. Gay couples will be forced to move if they wish to be legally married. Personally, I’d rather see Wisconsin become a state where gay couples can get married than a state from which gay couples flee in order to be married.
Charles Godfrey ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in physics and math.
