Senator Harry Reid’s statement on marriage equality

May 10, 2012 By 4 Comments

After President Obama’s historic declaration of support for marriage equality, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a statement of his own. Recall that Senator Reid is a practicing Mormon – I think that this statement draws a careful line between his personal religious convictions and his liberal political principles.

My personal belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman. But in a civil society, I believe that people should be able to marry whomever they want, and it’s no business of mine if two men or two women want to get married. The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have any impact on my life, or on my family’s life, always struck me as absurd.

In talking with my children and grandchildren, it has become clear to me they take marriage equality as a given. I have no doubt that their view will carry the future.

I handled a fair amount of domestic relations work when I was a practicing lawyer, and it was all governed by state law. I believe that is the proper place for this issue to be decided as well.

Note the closing emphasis on state law – it is important that liberals accept the outcome in North Carolina as a genuine expression of the democratic will for that state, if they are to insist that legal recognition of gay marriage in the six states where it has passed (CT, MA, IA, NH, NY, and VT).

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , 4 Comments
  • Kim

    I disagree with both Senator Reid’s conclusion and your follow-on that the states should be the final arbiters. That has not, unfortunately, been the case on other issues of bigotry and discrimination. We had the civil rights movement, and states unwilling to afford equal (actually-equal, not separate-but-’equal’) rights had to be compelled by the Civil Rights Act and other Federal laws. In any case, “accepting” that what is currently the majority view (polls actually say otherwise, the turnout was substantially skewed old in this case, but that’s trivial) as a final done deal is ridiculous. Reid himself points out that new generations know better already. This issue is dead, just waiting to be buried. Liberals here in NC have no reason to “accept the outcome” in any sense. Fighting for equal protection at the Federal level is an appropriate response, getting this back on the ballot soon is an appropriate response, and anything else liberal lawyers can come up with to oppose this discrimination is an appropriate response. Unfortunately, when it comes to fundamental rights, just “accepting” and taking “measured steps” never seems to get the job done. Whether that’s discrimination based on religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation, it’s the same problem.

    • Aziz Poonawalla

      Ultimately we do not yet have a social consensus on marriage equality, nor do we have a functioning Senate (remember that nowadays you need 60 votes to pass anything). Like it or not, opponents of gay marriage have a far stronger hand than they did during the Civil Rights Act back in the 60s. And there’s far more religious opposition to gay marriage than there was to civil rights – these are attitudes that will need a generational shift.

      I think that the better route to eventual marriage equality will be

      the LGBT community needs to be patient and work towards the goal with the long view. Frankly Obama has actually achieved vastly more for gay rights, legislatively speaking, than any activist could have dreamed (most notably ending DADT, but here’s a massive list of the rest). And while it’s tragic for a gay partner to be denied visitation rights, no one is being lynched, beaten, burned, raped. The analogy to the civil rights movement is valid but limited in its utility – but true change in both cases took time. For black citizens, that time span was basically 100 years from Emancipation to the CRA, 100 years of unbridled thuggery and torture and terror and brutalism to be ensured. Better than slavery, sure, but still blood-curdlingly horrific and far beyond any injustices the LGBT community have to endure today. And in a mere generation – 20 years or so – the vast majority of states will have marriage equality on the books, not by judicial fiat but by legislation of conscience, the kind that really stands the test of time. From there, the final push to federal law or even constitutional amendment won’t be nearly as heavy a lift.

      And to be honest there are other equally if not more important battles to fight ahead: women’s rights (we STILL haven’t passed the Equal Rights Amendment!), we still don’t have universal health coverage, we still don’t have a living wage, we still haven’t ended child poverty and hunger, we have made no progress on global warming, and our political process is still too vulnerable to predation by corporate money.

      Pursuing federal legislation on marriage equality when the outcome is inevitable via the state mechanism in time anyway imperils all the other agendas we have yet to procure. There’s a moral imperative to be pragmatic here, and recognize that there are constraints we cannot circumvent.

  • M

    I don’t mean to intrude here, but I would like to state my opinion that Harry Reid’s position is weak and confused. If someone truly and deeply believes that something is wrong, they will not renounce their intention to stand against it and encourage others to similarly give up the fight and surrender. It is not possible to have a personal belief that marriage is between a man and a woman yet advocate that the opposite definition be enshrined as the law of the land. If somebody says this, and we believe their whole declaration, then this person is telling us to surrender to people who he believes are gravely mistaken and who are intent on imposing their mistaken views on as many people as they can.

    So what are we to make of this statement? It may be that Mr. Reid is confused. We cannot know, but it is also possible that he is at heart a deceitful hypocrite. Either way, if Mr. Reid believes that his religion and his traditions are wrong, it would be better for him to come out directly and say it. Or better yet, rethink his position.

    • Aziz Poonawalla

      I disagree. I think that he displays compassion and tolerance towards those with whom he disagrees. The qur’an says, to you be your religion and to me mine; this is the essence of tolerance in a multicultural society.

      and frankly, gay marriage isn’t such a pressing issue in the life of a muslim or a mormon that we need to take such an aggressive stand against it. Its fine to simply agree to disagree and still treat people with respect.