conceding the point
one of the things about being married to a south african is that i’m often called to account for why america is the way it is. as the sole native representative in our flat, i’m asked about the vagaries or unique peculiarities that an outsider wouldn’t necessarily understand. so sometimes i get into discussions with j where i try (ineptly) to explain some of the differentiations between federal and state law. not that i fully understand them all the time myself, mind you. and there are plenty of times when, in trying to untangle the complicated knot of confusion that is our legal system, that i just have to concede the point to j as he states the obvious: my country is fucked.
for example, in massachusetts same sex marriage is legal, and entitled to all the same legal rights and privileges as any other marriage. children born in that marriage, therefore, are automatically legally bound to both parents.
that same sex marriage is not, however, recognised by federal law. the federal government also says no other state is required to recognise same sex marriages. (i have *no* idea how that works for tax purposes, but whatever.)
meanwhile, back in viginia, mary cheney and her partner of 15 years have had a child, and not only can they not get married or even have a civil union (not that i know if they’d even want to) but her partner has absolutely no legal ties to the baby. can’t even adopt as a second parent. set aside for a moment how incredibly sad that is, and move one step next door to maryland, and it’s yet another different ball of wax.
now how am i supposed to explain *that*? that even though a couple from massachusetts may consider themselves married, god forbid they get into an accident across the border in new hampshire, because suddenly none of those rights apply. and you haven’t travelled to another country, or even a different time zone. you can be 10 miles from where you started that morning and yet you’re no longer considered your spouse’s next of kin. and in the eyes of the federal government, you never were. and if that same couple move to virginia, how does the state consider their child?
of course to an outsider, it’s beyond ridiculous. forget about the subtle nuances of respect and love – it’s a mess because when citizens of the same country are at the mercy of such disparate political agendas, you can’t even pretend that everyone is equal under the same constitution. any notions of equality are completely undermined by variances in state law. so when j says things like, “how’re you supposed to know what the laws are if you’re not a native of the state?” “how can you have different gun laws from one place to the next?” “how come some felons can vote in some parts of the country, and others can’t?” “why don’t residents of washington dc have elected representation in congress?” i just have to nod my head in depressing agreement.
my country is fucked.
division of laura lee – the truth is fucked
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Like this post
Comment by aj
24.05.2007 @ 19:56 pm
i’m a fan of your site. usually i always agree with you and think you are very insightful. but i disagree about your opinion on fed, state and local laws. people need to govern themselves locally to some degree. and these laws will undoubtedly differ at times. no one set of individuals could ever successfully make decisions for all 300million people.
the great thing about this system is that good ideas spread – abolitionism or women’s suffrage or civil rights or today’s smoking and environmental laws. hopefully gay marriage will spread state by state as people see that it doesn’t undermine the institution of marriage.
Comment by Jen
24.05.2007 @ 20:38 pm
people need to govern themselves locally to some degree. and these laws will undoubtedly differ at times. no one set of individuals could ever successfully make decisions for all 300million people.
see, i’m not so convinced. i mean here in the uk, while there are some regional variances by country, fundamental civil rights laws are uniform across britain. that’s 60 million people. human rights laws are uniform across the eu.
i do think that marriage is a civil right which should be protected for all at the federal level. i think the right to vote falls into that same category.
(thanks for the lovely compliment btw!)
Comment by Stacey
25.05.2007 @ 16:17 pm
on the civil rights front, it’s easier to view it as the federal level setting a threshold and the states being free to locally vary *above* that threshold (provide more rights), but they aren’t able to go below that level. increased state civil rights are like a social laboratory, and often migrate to the federal level, thereby raising the overall threshold. it’s all a process. it can be frustrating that things don’t move as quickly as one would like, but that also means that things don’t move as quickly in directions one doesn’t like.
Comment by Jen
25.05.2007 @ 17:38 pm
Oh wise legal eagle!
it’s easier to view it as the federal level setting a threshold and the states being free to locally vary *above* that threshold (provide more rights), but they aren’t able to go below that level
unfortunately i find the minimum federal threshold unacceptable (i.e. the “defense of marriage act”) because in that case it actively *suppresses* anything states try to enact above that threshold in providing more rights, when it refuses to recognise those rights. and i’m sure at some point it’ll end up back in the supreme court due to state challenges, etc. but in the meantime, the inconsistencies really are just incomprehensible to me.
but that’s a good way to explain it to j.
Comment by Stacey
26.05.2007 @ 01:19 am
Well, as usual, you make an excellent point about things like the defense of marriage act. I think of the constitutional and related jurisprudence as the real threshold, I guess. Bad federal laws eventually get straightened up to that standard. But, yeah, it does take a really, really long time.
Comment by Stacey
26.05.2007 @ 01:20 am
the “constitution” and related jurisprudence, sorry!
Comment by Jen
26.05.2007 @ 01:29 am
I just thank god it’s not a constitutional amendment!
Comment by Anglofille
26.05.2007 @ 23:39 pm
I often get frustrated by these differences in state to state law, especially where individual rights are concerned. I think it’s ridiculous.
But to play devil’s advocate for a moment, Bush & Co. have been running the country for 7 years or so. If all the laws were made at the federal level, then places like Massachusetts would lose the right to have more liberal laws that drive conservatives crazy. The biggest insult aimed at John Kerry during his presidential campaign was that he was from Massachusetts (code word for “evil” to conservatives).
Comment by Jen
27.05.2007 @ 13:26 pm
Bush & Co. have been running the country for 7 years or so. If all the laws were made at the federal level, then places like Massachusetts would lose the right to have more liberal laws
i don’t want all laws made at the federal level – i do want civil rights protected (not denigrated) at that level. i mean, the right to vote, the right to own a gun (whether i agree with it or not) and the right to marry – these are things where there should be a modicum of uniformity because all the variations end up creating different classes of citizenship, depending on where you live.
stacey was right in pointing out that the speed of wide-scale change works both for and against.