Editorials
Thursday, September 12, 1996
Same-sex marriage ban
is political posturing
EITHER way one reads the U.S. Constitution, a bill that President Clinton plans to sign into law to oppose same-sex marriages is likely to be of no consequence. The legislation is pure politics, aimed at appealing to the majority of voters who feel marriages between homosexuals somehow threaten the institution of marriage between men and women.
The bill, dubbed the Defense of Marriage Act, was triggered by a 1993 decision by the Hawaii Supreme Court that the state must show a compelling interest before it can deny homosexuals the right to marry. The case went to trial this week in Circuit Court, but a final Supreme Court decision is not expected until 1998 at the earliest.
Opponents of same-sex marriage argued that gay couples on the mainland would obtain marriage licenses in Hawaii and thereby qualify for spousal insurance, tax and Social Security benefits in their home states. The federal legislation defines marriage as a contract between one man and one woman, and is aimed at allowing states to ignore same-sex marriages sanctioned in other states.
Article IV of the U.S. Constitution says, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state." If marriage fits that definition, a constitutional amendment would be required to enable states to ignore marriages performed in other states.
However, Richard S. Miller, a University of Hawaii law professor, contended in an article in the Star-Bulletin in June that marriage, unlike divorce, is not a judicial proceeding, so is not constitutionally protected. If that is the case, states can act on their own, as some already have, to deny marriage benefits to gays. No federal legislation was needed to accomplish this.
So what is this about? Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun, D-Ill., put it perfectly in saying the bill "is really about the politics of fear and division and about inciting people in an area which is admittedly controversial." The bill allowed members of Congress to go on record, even though the legislation had no substance.
Of greater consequence was a proposal to ban discrimination against homosexuals in employment, which was defeated by a single vote in the Senate. Hawaii already bans such discrimination. Businesses elsewhere should also be forbidden from judging their employees by their sexual orientation.
Crime as mayoral issue
MORE crime and fewer police officers has become the main issue in the mayoral campaign, with challengers Frank Fasi and Arnold Morgado hammering away at incumbent Jeremy Harris for his alleged failure to provide more police. But comments by Police Chief Michael Nakamura undercut that criticism.
Everybody agrees that more police are needed, but the real problem lies elsewhere. Fasi and Morgado are getting no support from the police chief for their criticism of Harris.
Family leave law
BILL Clinton is turning the family-values issue against Bob Dole by reminding voters in a television ad that he signed the family leave law and Dole opposed it. The law allows people to take unpaid leave from their jobs for up to 12 weeks to care for ailing children or other relatives or to give birth. His aides attacked Dole for "stubbornly standing alone against America's families."
However, Dole is right that no extension of the law to cover time off for medical appointments or school programs is warranted. Most employees can take vacation time to cover such matters; if not they should be able to negotiate it. To make a federal case out of this seems way out of proportion.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor