Forget football. Have you seen the season's new hit drama? Just pick up a newspaper or turn on CNN; with less than two weeks until Americans go to the polls and exercise their civic duty, Massachusetts residents, and all Tufts students especially, can tune in to the excitement.
Massachusetts Democrats and Republicans are in the midst of a made-for-TV cat-fight. This past week, Republican gubernatorial candidate, Kerry Healey, got down and dirty with her smearing campaign ads (let's just say prison suits were involved....), Democratic gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick clashed with fellow Democrat Bill Clinton, and Democratic Senator Barak Obama hinted on a Sunday morning talk show that he might want to move in to the White House.
In the midst of all this political jockeying before Election Day, the controversy surrounding same-sex unions/marriages also took central stage. On Wednesday, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that "Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution." They further mandated that the legislature rewrite the marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create a new system of civil unions for them-all within 180 days.
Such an ultimatum is causing ripples throughout the country; expect increased action as both opponents and proponents of same-sex unions and/or marriages rally to their corners in preparation for the Election Day boxing match.
The current federal statute, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, states that no state or federal government needs to recognize same-sex marriage even if it was concluded in another state. The present breakdown is as follows: thirty four states do not recognize same-sex marriages, twelve ban any recognition of any same-sex civil unions, and six states recognize same-sex marriage or some alternative form of same-sex union.
This pivotal issue is creating a rift between allies within both political parties. In an interview with the Boston Herald Tuesday, Patrick criticized Clinton's support of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. While Lt. Governor Healy agrees with the law, she does support civil unions-a view that differs significantly from her current boss, Republican governor Mitt Romney, an '08 hopeful. As President, he would support a federal amendment "as the most reliable way to protect traditional marriage."
The rapidly approaching elections do not afford political leaders much time to reconcile their differences on such a contentious issue. Since any challenge to the political status quo requires a re-adjustment of political strategy, both parties are scrambling to take a coherent and unified stance on the issue. As is usually the case when facing political pressure, it is not unrealistic to expect that candidates all across the nation may falter in the coming weeks when pressed to take a stand on the issue. In actuality, this is a good test to see how candidates behave under the pressure. It is enough for our aspiring leaders to merely shake hands, give bland speeches, and smile with babies for photo-ops; they must show us their true characters and commit to a position. This all makes for very good drama.
Still, looking past Election Day, it is vital to remember that although the issue of same-sex civil union/marriage may appear to create more discord than harmony, in the long run, everything of value takes time; a progressive law that ensures the equal rights are granted to all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, is well worth the conflict.
The issue of same-sex marriage played a huge role in the last few elections and is sure to keep things interesting. Stay tuned and pay attention: the jury is still out; the game is definitely on.
