Reporting on the objections
of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church to David Cameron’s
“contentious plan to legalize same-sex marriage” in the E.U. state of Britain,
the New York Times unwittingly followed the European tendency to compare a
state in the E.U. with the entire U.S. rather than to a state therein. “In some
ways,” the Times contended, the debate in the E.U. state “mirrors arguments in
the United States swirling around President Obama’s support for same-sex
marriage.” Actually, Obama’s support was not at the time very relevant even in
the U.S., as the “action” was occurring in particular states (as in the case of
the E.U.).
On the of the Times’ report,
the Huffington Post reported that the U.S. state of Washington would have a
referendum on gay marriage on the ballot in November, 2012. In total, 247,331
Washingtonians signed the petition, passing the minimum of 120,577 needed. Gov.
Chris Gregoire, David Cameron’s counterpart, had signed a bill into law the
previous February legalizing same-sex marriage. Essentially, the referendum
moved the matter from representative to direct democracy. Were a
“one-size-fits-all” decision to be reached for the entire U.S., justices rather
than an electorate would be the decision-makers. While possibly giving the
rights of a minority a “leg up” on majority rule, moving the issue from the people
of Washington to apply one decision on the U.S. as a whole was not a given at
the time.
Therefore, to relate the
thrashing out going on at the time in Britain (and France) to Obama’s campaign
stance on the issue rather than to what was going on in the American republics evinces something more than just a
category mistake (i.e., treating a state in the E.U. as equivalent to the
entire U.S. rather than to a state therein). The dynamic at the level of the
E.U. and U.S. is different than that which occurs in a state. Democracy being
relatively fort (strong) at the
state-level, the juridical protection of the rights of the individual may
paradoxically be stronger at the empire-level. Iowa is a notable
counter-example, however, on account of the action of the Iowa Supreme Court
legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps it could be said that majority rule is
stronger at the state level and thus more in balance with judicial decision. If
so, the E.U. principle of subsidiarity and the U.S. principle of residual
sovereignty (marriage being in the realm of the states’ sovereignty though
equal protection being a relevant U.S.-level juridical principle) should not be
relegated in a race to a central state at the empire-level. At the same time,
the U.S. and E.U. need enough power to maintain themselves. Treating a state in
the E.U. as if it were equivalent to the entire U.S. (i.e., essentially another
E.U. within the E.U.) distorts or ignores these dynamics of federalism.
Sources:
Alan Cowell, “ChurchesChallenge British Government Over Same-Sex Marriage,” The New York Times, June 12, 2012.
Chris Gentiviso, “Referendum 74, Washington State Anti-GayMarriage Measure, Qualifies for Ballot,” The Huffington Post, June 12, 2012.
Chris Gentiviso, “Referendum 74, Washington State Anti-GayMarriage Measure, Qualifies for Ballot,” The Huffington Post, June 12, 2012.
