The Debate Over Gay Marriage

Written between April and May 2^nd, 2004 as a High School Writing Workshop Piece

Edited on February 1^st, 2016

            Same-sex marriage is becoming a more and more important and widely debated issue, and is creating controversy and inspiring rallies across the country. Recently, the City of San Francisco, California legalized same-sex marriage, challenging the state’s constitution, which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. In the first week beginning February 12^th, almost three thousand gay and lesbian couples were wed. The city’s decision, which was opposed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Bill Lockyer, was put into effect to purposely question whether California and the United States would allow same-sex marriages in the future. A proposition that was passed in California in 2000 states that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Illinois’s law states that any marriage between two people of the same sex is considered invalid.

            The proposition in California’s law – which states that gay marriages are invalid, and denies gays a right that all heterosexuals have – directly opposes the 14^th Amendment by denying homosexuals equal rights. According to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, any law against gay marriage is unconstitutional. Two states have officially legalized gay marriage; one being Massachusetts, where judges say laws prohibiting gays from marrying are forms of segregation that make homosexuals and heterosexuals unequal. The other state is Vermont, where the law technically provides for “civil unions”, but not “gay marriage”, the only basic difference being that in marriage, the couple receives a marriage license.

            The 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified after slavery was abolished, states “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This clearly includes any homosexual who is a legal citizen of the United States. In a literal interpretation of this amendment, marriage is a privilege to which every U.S. citizen is entitled. Therefore it is illegal to deny the right to marry to any citizen. However, the unconstitutional proposition passed in California, as well as 37 other states, still stands. Some people who oppose gay marriage, including President George W. Bush, say that it will require a new constitutional amendment to allow gays to marry. To do so would require approval from 67 senators, approximately 300 representatives (depending on when the law would be passed), and the legislatures of 38 states. If it were to be formally proposed and passed, all previous state laws forbidding same-sex marriage would be invalid.

            Prior to the date when Vermont became the first state to legalize homosexual civil unions, the law’s treatment of gays had been similar to the treatment of blacks between the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement one hundred years later. State laws segregated African-Americans and whites, forcing them to be apart from each other in public settings at all times. Many Southern states had laws that forbade whites from marrying any person who was less than 7/8 white, but non-whites, then categorized as “coloreds”, could marry those of their own race. These laws, which were called segregation laws or “Jim Crow” laws, also required blacks and whites to have separate bathroom facilities, separate buildings to buy alcohol, and separate movie theaters. Under these laws, blacks and whites were considered “separate but equal”, and therefore the laws were not considered unconstitutional.

            Today, many Christian groups are against any efforts to pass laws legalizing gay marriage. Some are seeking the White House’s support in opposing any propositions that “redefine” marriage. According to them, marriage between two men or two women, and any homosexual acts, are immoral. Some, like Kenneth Howell, the director of the Newman Institute of Catholic Thought, oppose gay marriage because he thinks laws should reflect morals. The Catholic Church does not condone it because homosexual marriage serves no purpose; specifically, to create children. Some say that allowing either civil unions, marriages, or domestic partnerships – which allow gays, and also heterosexual couples whom do not want to marry, to have benefits such as jail and hospital visitation and funeral arrangements, but not the right to be recognized as “married” – would undermine the religious values of Christians and Jews.

            If the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (Note: there are alternative legal options that could also be effective in prohibiting this across the country; an amendment is not necessary the only way to do it) were to be officially proposed, voted on, and passed, then it would be the first amendment in United States history to take rights away from people. If any state were to legalize gay marriage before the amendment, married gay couples would have to be broken up by law, and they would no longer be able to visit each other in hospitals or have power of attorney over them and the ability to decide what happens to them when they die. Homosexuals, a significant percent of the population, would have one of the most important freedoms taken away from them; the freedom to love, and the freedom to be considered a married couple by the law.

            Although in Illinois, marriage between two people of the same sex, performed in other states, is invalid, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley has expressed support for the possibility of Cook County legalizing gay marriage, along with the mayors of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Salt Lake City, Utah, as well as Gifford Miller, the Speaker of the New York City Council. SO far, the same number of states that would have to approve any constitutional amendment allowing gay marriages, has already passed laws against them. Still, with the changes made in the last few years advancing gay rights, such as San Francisco’s and Massachusetts’s gay marriage laws, Vermont’s civil unions law, and Cook County, Illinois and New York City’s domestic partnerships laws, the possibility remains that homosexuals will soon be entitled to get married and have the same rights as heterosexuals, and with the help of voters making the decision in favor of love and freedom, it could become a reality soon.

A Case Examination of Policy for Natural Resource Management

 Westerlo County, New York

 
    Residents of Westerlo have shown concern over the growing problems of air and water pollution, soil erosion, destruction of wildlife habitats, rapid population growth, the fragmentation of the rural landscape, the impact of the proliferation of cars on the physical and social environment, dissatisfaction with greater-than-local governmental controls on natural resource management, lack of social infrastructure, and threats to the property rights and property values of landowners.

I believe that, in order to best manage growth and protect natural resources, the town of Westerlo should use public money to purchase the development rights of any lands which it deems most important to allocate specific uses. The town should also employ a system of differential property taxation in order to delay rapid land conversion and development, and to give the town an opportunity to come up with a comprehensive plan for the uses that will be allowed in each area of the town.

Purchasing the development rights of valuable areas such as the reservoir, or any lands in low-lying areas that may be prone to flooding, would allow the town to protect water quality by limiting public access to it. Were the town to then sell those development rights to a private investor interested in constructing a water purification and treatment facility on the site of the reservoir, human pollution, pollution from automobiles, animal pollution, soil erosion, and pollution from runoff could  be greatly decreased,  thus ensuring a high level  of water quality for the residents of Albany County.

The town should first use state enabling legislation to purchase development rights to those lands it deems most necessary to protect, such as wetlands or farmlands with rich soils. Then, it should appropriate funds to establish an administrative agency to operate the program. Next, the agency would draft program regulations for the purchase of development rights, including a method for preserving farmland. The agency would then consider applications to sell development rights, hire an independent appraiser to appraise the development rights value of each farm, negotiate the conservation easement price with the landowner, purchase the development rights, and monitor and enforce the terms of the easement.

This plan would largely prevent land use conversion and development. It is not typically difficult to implement, and when used correctly, it can achieve strict, permanent regulatory action in the district from which land rights are purchased. Purchasing the development rights of certain areas would be less expensive than if the town were to purchase the land itself. The plan would not allow takings to be claimed, as the town would make compensation in exchange for regulatory action. It would not make it impossible for landowners in the transfer district to sell their land; the landowner retains the right to stay on the land, and any other rights he might have, besides the right to develop the land for uses of which the city disapproves.

The town should also employ a system of differential property taxation for agricultural and forestlands. The town should value highest those lands that it would most like to see developed into uses that maximize the productive potential of the land. With this method, it can do so without compromising the quality of adjacent lands or wildlife habitats, and without forcing career or hobby agriculturalists or foresters to sell their land.

Differential property taxation is perceived as a helpful tool for preventing fragmentation of the rural landscape. It would give the town the opportunity to take time to decide what uses are preferential in each area of the town. This plan would likely delay land development and conversion, although it would not prevent it entirely.

In differential property taxation, the town enters into contracts with landowners for several years at a time, and agrees to keep the property tax rates low for those landowners who are using their lands in ways the town finds conducive to the protection of the physical environment. The town can raise property taxes on owners who reside on large plots of land and are not using the land to its full agricultural potential, which would eventually lead to the sale of the land to an investor who will develop the land to a more intensive agricultural use.

Under this system, the difference in assessed value between the most productive use and the agricultural use multiplied by the local tax rate determines the size of the tax break. This would mean that those farmers who own land with the greatest difference between the value of the most productive use and the value of the agricultural use would save the most money in property taxes. It also means that there would be a small increase in the taxes of landowners who use their land for purposes not preferred by the city.

To ensure that land use in the future will be conducive to productivity and environmental health, the town should pass an ordinance requiring that any investor who buys certain plots of land after a specified date should have to develop the land in a way the town would prefer. This is especially important for the many agricultural lands with steep slopes in the area. The town should give tax incentives for landowners who convert these lands into terraced agriculture, which would  save moisture,  prevent soil erosion,  and allow for  the maximum  use of space for farming.

The town could cut air pollution and prevent further encroachment on wildlife habitats by passing ordinances restricting the location of roads to places where runoff and car exhaust are unlikely to damage agricultural and forestlands. Another approach would be to design road systems that encourage people to carpool. The town should also consider using public funds to buy development rights and sell them to investors interested in locating depots for energy-efficient public transportation systems, such as bus and taxicab companies, in downtown Westerlo, and/or a light rail system along the highway to Albany. This would promote population growth in Westerlo, and the zoning and differential property taxation ordinances that the town will have put in place by the time public transportation systems become necessary will promote sustainable development, providing the town funding for social infrastructure such as police and fire stations, schools, libraries, and improvements to roads. The town would also do well to ensure a mixture of residential and commercial uses near the center of the town and other areas of highly-concentrated population, so as to lower the number of people who would require motor transportation to get to and from commercial and residential areas.

I do not believe that a transfer of development rights program would be in Westerlo’s best interest because such a programs are difficult to implement, especially considering the expected cost to the public bank to buy development rights if no private investors are interested in purchasing properties the town wants to conserve. Given the small population of the town compared to the size of the agriculture and forestry lands the citizens want to preserve, this would be difficult for the town to afford. Also, transfer of development rights programs are not as effective as purchase of development rights programs are in making sure that lands in which the town wants to prohibit or delay development or conversion are successfully protected. TDRs (Transfer-of-Development Rights) would occasionally only allow the town to relocate development rights to elsewhere on the parcels.

Written in Summer 2008

Originally Published on October 24th, 2010

For more entries on energy and natural resources, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/case-examination-of-policy-for-natural.html

For more entries on land, land reform, and land taxation, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/proposal-for-cooperative-party-of-oregon.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/cascadia-proposal.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-philosophy-of-taxation-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/bundy-cows-better-off-as-slaves.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/sen-cliven-bundy-harry-reid-owes-feds.html

For more entries on natural resources, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/conservatives-for-georgism-and-social.html