Last week, Congress took a historic step toward undoing government discrimination against lesbian and gay Americans. In a resounding and bipartisan vote, the House of Representatives by 234-194 authorized repeal of military discrimination -- trivialized by its common name, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The Senate Armed Services Committee voted for the same measure, and hopefully, the full Senate will swiftly send the bill to the President's desk.
When asked to explain their votes, we heard again and again from lawmakers that it is wrong and un-American to single out a group for discriminatory and unequal treatment; as Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, repealing military discrimination would "make America more American." With the long-overdue vote to authorize an end to the military's anti-gay policy, Speaker Pelosi declared, "we honor the values of our nation, and we close the door on fundamental unfairness." She is only partly right. While repealing military discrimination certainly honors the values of our nation, it is only a step toward closing the door on fundamental unfairness.
Congress mandated military discrimination in 1993 in a shameful display of prejudice and fear mongering aimed at gay and lesbian Americans. The hypocritical and cruel "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy imposed on gay people serving our country was as unfair, unreasonable, and unconstitutional then as it is now. Since 1993, Americans have come a long way in their understanding of gay people and the unfair nature of discrimination against the LGBT community. Congress has finally caught up with the American people in supporting an end to military discrimination, which, as the experience of our allies who have ended similar discrimination in their armed forces shows, serves no valid purpose. Military discrimination makes America less safe and is a stain on our commitment to equal treatment and equal respect under the law.
Unfortunately, after approving military discrimination in 1993, Congress took further steps to isolate and stigmatize lesbian and gay Americans. Three years later, in 1996, in another orchestrated campaign of scare tactics, Congress passed the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act," making marriage discrimination federal policy for the first time in American history. DOMA inserted the federal government into what was always the states' role under the Constitution to determine who may marry, and it created two classes of marriage, those the federal government respects, and those which, even when legally sanctioned, are denied every one of the more than a thousand federal protections and responsibilities afforded to married couples, including critical access to Social Security, immigration, health-coverage, and spousal tax benefits.
Military service, like marriage, has long been considered a defining element of citizenship and full participation in society. And military discrimination, like exclusion from marriage, is one of the cruelest and most unfair ways in which gay Americans endure inequality at the hands of their own government. Even the architects of these discriminatory laws have changed their minds and publicly called for their repeal. Colin Powell, a key advocate of military discrimination in 1993, now publicly opposes that policy. Likewise, President Clinton and former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, who signed and authored DOMA in 1996, now support its repeal.
The vast majority of Americans support repealing military discrimination, and once the bill is signed, the President and military leaders should move quickly to finish the job. And as soon as Congress finalizes the bill authorizing repeal, it should turn its attention to removing the equally repugnant 1996 law mandating federal discrimination in marriage and get government out of the business of discriminating against any American.
I believe that Speaker Pelosi and the majority of Americans do indeed want to "close the door" on fundamental unfairness and unequal treatment of gay and lesbian citizens by the government. Repealing military discrimination is a meaningful stride toward full and equal citizenship for all, but before we can declare the door closed on discrimination, we must stop denying committed couples, who happen to be gay, the equal right to cross the threshold.
Follow Evan Wolfson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/freedomtomarry
Second there is nothing preventing gays from serving. In fact I am positive that gays have always served honorably in the services.
Don't even try to say that they "should not have to hide", the same applies to heteros in service as well. There is an exhausting number of things that can be determined to be "prejudicial to good order and discipline". Many of the things we all take for granted in the every day world fall into that category in service. As a simple explanation, nearly everything kinky could get you in trouble. And no that is not all.
The correct actions are therefore: 1. repeal of USC 10-654. 2. Repeal of only the don't tell part of DADT, keeping the don't ask part on the books.
I am astonished that Mr. Wolfson does not seem to understand this.
The historical isolationism of American political and social thought seems to preclude the simple act of looking at what other countries have done in any given situation (same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, all the usual hot-button issues). Why do you continually go through this divisive national soul-searching every time someone suggests that the US might benefit from joining the 21st century? Do you really believe you're the first to grapple with these issues? Traditionally, you're among the last.
Granted, the iron grip that the religious right has over your political system may require conspicuous courage on the part of some of your politicians, but otherwise, the whole world has been there, done that. Stop re-inventing the wheel, folks: it's round, and it works.
Let us honor the gay and lesbian soldiers who've already died and are dying in service to our nation by making sure that all Americans str8 and gay have the same rights to serve and the same rights to marry the person they love, and the same rights to live in dignity and peace and prosperity. Then we are honoring the finest traditions of the USA, when she stands tall for all human beings and thus honoring these fine men and women in memory by doing the best by all Americans as equal citizens..
If that doesn't point out the gross inconsistency and hypocrisy of anti-gay discrimination, I don't know what does.
I did not see combat but my Marine son is and Iraq vet.
Now stuff it.
That way this 'new term' that would be developed could be granted the same rights and privileges as marriage, but not be 'limited' to be just between a man and a woman.
Civil Union was tried, and is too clinical sounding to be romantic enough to signify a meaningful relationship between two partners.
Just a thought.
In Every state of the United States, it is the state government, through county courthouses and state offices that issue marriage licenses, just as it is the state that issues drivers licenses. Therefore, it is not the church that is recognizing the validity of the marriage. It is the state that is doing so.
So those who are religiously affiliated are wrong. Marriage is not a religious institution, it is a civil institution, and to deny this right to someone based on sexual orientation is a blatantly wrong as if the state denied a drivers license to someone who is gay.
Of course, the religious are not going to be persuaded by reason. They are persuaded by faith and reject reason a priori. If you doubt this, look at the rejection of a heliocentric solar system, or the rejection of biological evolution.
CIVIL MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT.
The arguement of discrimination against same sex marriages does not hold any water. If you argue it is about the rights to social security, health benefits and others, then the arguement is not about two people marrying for love, but for the right to stuff. A man and woman do not get married for the right to collect social security benefits or health insurance.
This issue is not about reason and discrimination, it is about what is right for society and in God's eyes. Just because two people love each other does not justify to right to marry. A daughter loves a father; a son loves a mother; a sister loves a brother, and so on. Does this justify marriager?
I know we will never agree but that is because of each of our world views. I look at the world from God's point of view and you will see it based on standards that you want to make up as you go or that feels right for you.
It is not about the word "marriage" it is all about knowing what is right and wrong for society and the sanctity of the family.
At some point we will all have to answer to God. So be fearful of how you view what standard you want to live by. Your standard or a standard established and designed by our creator.
In His Name
Take the argument and remove the words "gay, lesbian, LBGT, homosexual, ...".
Insert the word "Negro" in its place.
Does the argument still make sense? Does it square with the U.S. Constitution as amended?
If so, it's a valid argument, if not ...
Now, you may wish to go to your favorite church and have a nice ceremony performed by your favorite priest or pastor or whatever, but as long as it is the state issuing the license, it is still a Civil institution.
So, since it is a civil institution, the last thing in the world you should have is the church deciding who can be married and who cannot.
Sorry, your logic was completely backwards.
You are correct. It is so that each citizen has the same rights as the next without regard to religion.
Marriage is a CIVIL institution and a CIVIL right. Each state, as well as DC and US territories, sets its own rules for marriage. Those rules have NOTHING to do with religion. NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The states rightfully allow atheists and other non religious people to marry. I shudder to think what would happen if this power were given to the churches. Shudder, shudder, shudder!
And, this new measure, to repeal DADT is really a stalling measure that takes the heat off Obama while the status quo remains in place until the bureaucrats decide otherwise.