Marriage Equality: A Cause and Conversation That Won't (and Shouldn't) Stop

Posted September 13, 2007 | 01:09 PM (EST)



stumbleupon :Marriage Equality: A Cause and Conversation That Won't (and Shouldn't) Stop   digg: Marriage Equality: A Cause and Conversation That Won't (and Shouldn't) Stop   reddit: Marriage Equality: A Cause and Conversation That Won't (and Shouldn't) Stop   del.icio.us: Marriage Equality: A Cause and Conversation That Won't (and Shouldn't) Stop

In the last several weeks, there were a few strong reminders that discussion about ending gay people's exclusion from marriage will not just disappear. Just last week, the California legislature passed a bill for the second time, picking up votes, to remove the different-sex restriction on couples seeking to marry. Right before Labor Day, in a valentine from the heartland, a trial court judge found no legitimate government purpose in denying same-sex couples marriage, and struck the exclusion down - in Iowa.

With a Republican audience actually booing a candidate's anti-gay position when the marriage question came up in a party debate in New Hampshire, and a marriage case coming out right in Iowa, the epicenters of presidential politics are providing further evidence that people want to see the candidates address this civil rights question with authenticity, coherence, and principle.

As the Harkin Steak Fry approaches this weekend on September 16th with most of the Democratic presidential candidates scheduled to attend, and as even Republican candidates earn rebukes for their knee-jerk criticisms of a respected Iowa judge doing his job, those of us not running for president should help candidates get better by talking about why marriage matters and who gay families are, thereby creating space for them to rise to fairness. Wishing that others would just shut up is not a strategy; it's denial. Trust me; I know.

In order to assist candidates and those working with them, Freedom to Marry has just released the Candidates' Guide on How to Support Marriage Equality and Get Elected.

The Guide states:

"No candidate for office will be able to ignore the national conversation about fairness for all families. Candidates who understandably want to spend more time talking about other weighty campaign concerns ought to explain simply and definitively that they are for equality in marriage because marriage matters and equality is right for all Americans. Most people will respect their position and a personal story even if they do not fully agree, and candidates can move on to the questions that will determine most people's vote."

The highly readable, solid, and persuasive decision by Judge Hanson in the Iowa case brought by Lambda Legal offers a very clear picture of why marriage matters. The reactions of Iowans underscored that ending marriage discrimination is first and foremost about real people, and real love; one of the first people to register for a marriage license, David Rethmeier, said, "I started to cry because we so badly want to be able to be protected if something happens to one of us."

Marriage is a precious right

Judge Hanson held:

Both the Iowa Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have recognized that the right to marry is a fundamental right...[P]rotections "should not ultimately hinge upon whether the right sought to be recognized has been historically afforded. Our constitution is not merely tied to tradition, but recognizes the changing nature of society." Iowa Courts have generally been at the forefront in preserving the civil rights of their citizens in areas such as race, gender and sexual orientation.

Denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry harms families

Attempting to enumerate the myriad tangible and intangible harms same-sex couples and their families experience when denied marriage, the decision devotes six pages to describing 22 specific injuries same-sex couples experience every day: in child care and custody issues, inheritance, health care, property rights, and numerous daily events and exchanges that are affected by marriage or its absence.

The word 'marriage' itself is crucially important

As Pride Source pointed out,

The institution of marriage, Hanson wrote, is "so woven into the fabric of daily life and so determinative of legal rights and status" that denial of a marriage license "amounts to a badge of inferiority" imposed on gay couples and their children.

We are more than a year away from election 2008. As courts continue to rule, legislatures vote, and people who care about equality speak up and take action, our representatives looking for support in the presidential election must answer, not evade. Those who favor fairness and are busy now counseling or working for candidates should spend the next 14 months helping change happen, rather than arguing with the likes of me about why it can't.

Comments for this post are now closed

 

Comments
12
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:

Sorry, I gave you page 3 of our argument. Here's page 1:

http://forums.dmregister.com/viewtopic.php?t=44875&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

But whatev, you know how to turn pages right?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 PM on 09/13/2007

I had an online argumen with someone at DesMoinesRegister.com

An opponent of marriage equality, screenname Aaron, was arguing with me, screenname h3986, and everyone else in that room. We were all pro-marriage.

There was no organized effort, everyone was actingas an individual, but we of course added on each other's point. Of course everyone argued from a different angle and I don't know if I would use those angles myself, but they made great points. I only posted about three times, it very time consuming. But I hope that it provides a fodder for the type of real-world arguments that happen around today's newest conversation circle, the blog.

The pro-equality gang included screennames AlexGrigney, PrimeWonk, and "justink". Evan, I think you'll like one of AlexGrigney's first posts talking about how civil unions are not enough.

A small warning the first few posts are from folks who yakked about other stuff about marriage for anybody. Separate argument. The real debate begins when "Aaron" comes in and tries to defend the current exclusion of gay couples from the freedom to marry.

I hope you'll learn from this interchange and know that you'll more likely see an anti-marriage individual speak her/his thoughts freely online. So train your conversation muscles :)

Here you go:

http://forums.dmregister.com/viewtopic.php?t=44875&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 PM on 09/13/2007

In a pluralistic society, a non-theocracy, I don't see the problem with the following:

Civil Marriage: Open to adults (or emancipated minors 16 and up), with all the benefits and responsibilities thereof: legal, medical and financial

Religious Marriage: Performed in the church/synagogue/mosque/ashram/etc of the couple's choice, done according to the tenets of the religion, incorporating those tenets as well as the benefits accorded by Civil Marriage.

And I say this as a Roman Catholic convert from eevangelical/fundamentalist Protestantism - what is the problem with the above?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:14 PM on 09/13/2007

We officially already have that in the US. We don't have a requirement that only a religious official can make a marriage legal. There are always secular officials who can marry a couple. What we don't have consistently across all 50 states and the territories is a means for a same-sex couple to use the legally binding parts of a wedding.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:20 PM on 09/13/2007

Blueraven, EXACTLY! I wish people would stop maing these straw man conflations.

Chinohilster, even if what you suggested wasn't already the case and we started framing the marriage equality debate in those terms, what difference do you think it would really make?

Think about it. We have states passing amendments to outlaw ANY legal recognition of same-sex unions; NO marriage (civil or religious), NO Domestic Partnerships and NO Civil Unions.

In light of this fact what do you really think differentiating the already differentiated Civil marriage from Religious marriage would accomplish?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:41 PM on 09/13/2007

How about if we split the differance? Let gay people have civil unions with all the benifits of marriage but don't call it marriage. That way marriage is protected as being between a man and a woman, and gay people will have all the same legal rights of a married couple.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:42 PM on 09/13/2007

Restricting marriage to different-sex couples does nothing to "protect" marriage, but does deny it to committed same-sex couples seeing the same rules, same responsibilities, and same respect under the law for their loved ones.

You might be interested in this online publication explaining why civil union is not the same, and not good enough:
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/images/pdfs/marriage_makes_a_word_of_difference.pdf

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:43 PM on 09/13/2007

Would you be in favor of only allowing straight people the chance to a single marriage? After that, after say a divorce, all they get is a second class civil union?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 PM on 09/13/2007

Do you think marriage needs to be "protected"? If so, protected from what exactly? My gf and I plan on marrying someday, yet we aren't worried that "the gays" will somehow taint it for us.

What harm would be done (say within the next 10 years) were gay marraige to become legal tomorrow?

I mean, it sounds sorta like the argument is not that different from "Look, the blacks can still *ride the bus*, that's the important part, right? Who cares if they sit in the front or the back."

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:53 PM on 09/13/2007

Not that marriage needs to be protected, but by this minor distinction is the most likely to draw a majority support of the nation and the congress for passing such a law.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:37 PM on 09/13/2007

People who oppose same-sex marriage don't go far enough: all marriage should be banned. OK, not banned, just recognized as an obsolete institution used by church and government to control our lives and to make more babies.

50% of marriages end in divorce, but this is a bad thing? That's an extra 50% who aren't serving out a life sentence on an old piece of paper, who aren't making each other miserable. Marriage is like Valentine's Day-- it's cute and fun and romantic, but who is St. Valentine anyway and why should we care?

As a member of the lesbian gay BISEXUAL TRANSGENDER community, I find the latest strategies of gay activists to be-- boring. White picket fence. Kids. I wouldn't deny anyone the right to live in conformity according outmoded customs based largely on the "blessings" of the Sky God. Yet my humanitarian goal would be: just love each other and gain whatever meaning and pleasure there is to be gained from companionship in any form.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:57 PM on 09/13/2007

If people *truly* believe gay marriage is such a big threat to the "sanctity" of marriage or to society in general, they should also push for laws to ban divorce and to make infidelity a felony.

Of course since infidelity and divorce are the two biggest *actual* marriage deal breakers and a majority of people are effected by one or the other, that will never happen.

People who speak out for wedge issues the hardest are generally those who are not impacted by them, be it straight people WRT gay marriage or people who believe it's God's plan for them to have as many kids as possible (i.e. who needs abortion in that case?).

As for stem cell research, if we do eventually derive amazing treatments and cures, I hope the people who opposed it also oppose any of the derived benefits for themselves of their loved ones (something tells me that won't happen).

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:38 PM on 09/13/2007
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in


 
 
Bloggers Index›
Read All Posts by
Evan Wolfson›
 

 Site  Web ask.com