Do We Need a National Law on Marriage?

March 12, 2004 — -- I get confused watching this same-sex marriage debate. Both sides are so certain their side is absolutely correct, and what they believe should be the law — everywhere.

Watch John Stossel's full report tonight on 20/20 at 10 p.m.

Gay activists in cities across the country say they have a right to marry, and some government officials have gone ahead and performed same-sex marriages, but it's not clear that's legal.

In New Paltz, N.Y., Mayor Jason West was recently "solemnizing" marriages. But what does that mean? West may believe same-sex couples are entitled to be married in his town, but New York's attorney general, Elliot Spitzer, says he's breaking the law.

In Portland, Ore., gay people lined up for marriage licenses, which local officials said were legal, because unlike other states, Oregon's law says marriage is a contract entered into by males and females at least 17 years of age. It doesn't say between a man and a woman.

But opponents of same-sex marriage say the courts are taking it upon themselves to re-write the law. They're adamant that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.

President Bush agrees. He says, "Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage," and he wants to put the man / woman definition in the Constitution.

Undermining the 'Sanctity' of Marriage?

Many same-sex marriage opponents say their position is backed up by the Bible. They say same-sex marriage violates God's plan, and allowing gays to marry would undermine the institution of marriage.

Gays and lesbians who want to marry say the issue is about justice and equal rights, not religion.

With all this acrimony, it's hard to see how this will be resolved.