Let states and communities choose solutions that work for them
Our nation is a diverse one, and that diversity has contributed mightily to our growth and strength. Communities hold different values and opinions on dozens of issues, including homosexuality, and that diversity should be respected. Communities must be free to make their own choices because solutions really only work if they come from the grassroots and reflect the values and norms of most people. Local policy on gay and lesbian issues has evolved over the years based on changing comfort levels, without government interference. Some places have chosen to offer protections for gays while others have imposed bans on same-sex behavior. That's their right, particularly with our tradition of federalism. Those who disagree with local decisions can seek remedies by moving elsewhere. On this issue, the federal government should follow, not lead.
What Should be Done?
Rather than dictating a solution, the federal government should let individual communities decide, based on their own norms and values, whether to allow same-sex marriages or civil unions.The government should let individual states, communities and businesses decide whether they want to offer domestic-partner benefits.Communities should decide for themselves whether they need hate crime laws or whether current laws are sufficient. If they do adopt them, the laws should cover hate crimes against all minorities, including but not just gays and lesbians.Government should let individual communities decide, based on community sentiment, whether to include discussion of gays and lesbians in sex education, or how to sanction committed relationships between two people of the same sex.
Arguments For This Approach
The United States has always been a diverse quilt of communities. New Yorks laws differ from Iowas, and for good reason: Whats right for one place isnt necessarily for another. It makes no more sense for Greenwich Village to dictate to Des Moines, Iowa, how to act than for Des Moines to dictate to Greenwich Village. Until now, the federal government has largely stayed away from legislating issues related to homosexuality, and communities and states have developed their own rules in accordance with their needs. Thats the right response and politicians shouldnt meddle with what works. Just as private employers are responsible to their stockholders and employees, the same principles of responsibility apply to communities. They are beholden only to the best interests of their constituents. Those who dont like the choices their communities make can always move elsewhere. Other important matters -- such as criminal law and the death penalty -- have been left to the states to decide, and that should be the case with gay rights.
Arguments Against This Approach
African-Americans would never have received civil rights protection if the matter had been left to local authorities. This is another case where the federal government needs to step in to guarantee the rights of a minority.Without federal action, we will end up with a patchwork of laws that offer gays and lesbians protection in some areas but not in others. Either gays and lesbians are citizens deserving of full civil rights or they are not -- you cant split the difference. This kind of attitude may lead to positive changes for gays and lesbians, but it could take decades. In the meantime, discrimination and hate crimes continue every day. Government has to take a stand at some point about marriage being a union between a man and a woman, if for no other reason than to provide some consistency about our morals and laws. Once this definition of marriage is abandoned, there is no logical reason for limiting it to two people. Why not have three partners?
Tags: 
Comments
Post new comment