Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Justice Scalia's Rant Misses the Point on Same-Sex Marriage

I couldn’t help but notice the stark contrast in reactions to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in two landmark gay marriage cases.  On one side we saw jubilant celebrations as a long-denied civil right was finally granted to same-sex couples in California, and the dignity and value inherent in loving gay relationships were boldly affirmed in striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The other side was characterized by anguished and bitterly defeated anti-gay marriage Republicans and conservative Christians who condemned the decisions as unholy attacks on traditional marriage and a threat to society. Even the supremely arrogant Justice Antonin Scalia couldn’t resist unleashing his own hostile views in his caustic dissent:

“To defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement.”

Besides being an outspoken advocate for the losing side, Scalia’s rant offers clear evidence that the Right just simply doesn’t get it when it comes to gay marriage. Scalia is correct in asserting that defending traditional marriage is not the same as anti-gay bigotry, and it’s wrong to assume such views to be the motivation of every opponent of same-sex marriage.  However, the major flaw unpinning his argument is thinking that religious-based assertions to uphold the definition of traditional marriage is a legitimate basis to deny extending marriage equality to those who don’t subscribe to it.

In other words, both viewpoints are NOT equally defensible from a social equality and civil rights standpoint. Same-sex marriage doesn’t in any way infringe upon the right or desire of heterosexuals to pursue marriage -- and despite opponents’ empty claims to the contrary -- will have no impact on those unions. However, efforts by opponents of gay marriage to ban, restrict or deprive same-sex couples of the right to marry represent a substantial infringement. 

As a society, we understand the value of social and cultural norms, but a strong belief in tradition is not sufficient grounds to justify unequal or unjust treatment of a class of citizens under the law. Republicans and Christian conservatives vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage either pretend not to grasp this basic point or are so blinded by their own narrow beliefs that they choose to disregard it, which is why they are losing the fight against gay marriage.

Despite the Right’s ideological resistance to change, cultures do evolve -- as do long-held attitudes, traditions and beliefs.  If they didn’t, gay Americans wouldn’t be allowed to serve openly in today’s U.S. military; interracial couples wouldn’t be allowed to wed; African Americans and women would be prevented from voting; and the unjust and immoral practice of racial segregation would still be the shameful law of the land. 


The goal of affirming equality for all citizens is a universal principle that must always trump other narrow religious and ideological interests, no matter how passionately and intensely advocated. That’s a point on which even conservatives can all agree, whether they choose to personally accept gay marriage or not.

G. Chaise Nunnally is a senior proposal editor and freelance writer in Southern California. He can be reached at gcnunnally@aol.com.

No comments:

Post a Comment