Evan Wolfson is right that the phrase "gay marriage" confuses many people into thinking that this is a separate and unique institution, rather than the simple issue of equal access to government licensed civil marriage.
And heterosexuals are not the only ones confused. My partner and I decided to "elope" to Canada after nearly 25 years together, rather than spend a lot of money to avoid offending friends not invited to the small Massachusetts ceremony we would otherwise have chosen here.
More than three years have passed, and we still hear these comments from gay and straight people alike.
- I thought Massachusetts was the only place in the world where gay people can marry.
- You were married in Canada? Does Massachusetts recognize Canadian marriages?
- What is the difference between a gay marriage in Canada and a gay marriage in Massachusetts?
To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, "a marriage is a marriage is a marriage." And while some fellow citizens do not "recognize" my marriage (just as many of them may not recognize the marriages of children whom marry into a different faith, or the remarriage of a spouse after divorce), at least the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a growing number of states in the world understand the constitutional distinction between civil rights and religious rites.
Today is Freedom to Marry Day - Just Don't Say "Gay Marriage"!
As Americans across the country celebrate Freedom to Marry Day today, seizing the opportunity to have conversations with family members, friends, and coworkers about the importance of ending same-sex couples' exclusion from marriage, hopefully they'll talk a lot about gay couples and why marriage matters -- without saying "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage." Same-sex couples, their kids and loved ones, and those of us who favor equal justice in America are not working to win "gay marriage." We are working to win the freedom to marry, ending the current unfair denial of marriage to those who are already doing the work of marriage in their own lives.
Phrases such as "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" imply that same-sex couples are asking for something other than marriage. They imply that same-sex couples deserve something different or lesser than the security, protections, safety-net, and respect that married couples cherish. (PDF) And they play into the right-wing's fear-mongering that gay people are a threat to marriage, that equality and inclusion would somehow unacceptably "redefine" the law (in a country dedicated to those very values), and that "Defense of Marriage" is the answer to committed couples seeking to participate in a precious institution.
Marriage is not defined by who is excluded from it, and gay people are not the first to challenge its denial. This year we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the first court ruling striking down race restrictions on who could marry whom. In Perez v. Sharp, the California Supreme Court held that "the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice." The court explained that "human beings are bereft of worth and dignity by a doctrine that would make them as interchangeable as trains"; when you are denied the freedom to marry the person precious and irreplaceable to you, it's not like you can just catch the next one.
Fittingly, as we mark the 60th anniversary of that courageous court decision, other couples now stand before the same court which will hear argument on March 4, 2008. Those couples are not seeking "gay marriage," any more than Mrs. Perez sought "black marriage," or her husband sought "Latino marriage." They all claim, and deserve, marriage itself, the freedom to marry, which the U.S Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, noted "has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
As we speak out about why marriage matters and how the denial of marriage harms couples and kids, undermining our nation's commitment to fairness and freedom, we've seen states move in the right direction, but falling short of equality. States such as California, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont have created new legal mechanisms, called partnership or civil union, to provide parallel legal protections and responsibilities for gay people and their families. These new mechanisms - "gay marriage" - are better than nothing, but no substitute for marriage itself (PDF). Happily, in each of these states the debate continues and awareness is deepening that the work is not done, civil unions don't work, separate is not equal, and it's time to finish the job of ending exclusion from marriage, not just repackaging it.
Even without clear terminology always prevailing, people are getting it. Public support for marriage equality is growing faster than ever before. In just over 10 years, according to the Gallup poll, support for marriage equality has jumped almost 20 percentage points, while those against fairness decreased 15 percentage points in the same time period. Imagine the rate of progress we could see if people understood this not as creating "gay marriage," but, rather, ending the denial of the "freedom to marry" and letting couples committed to one another in life share the legal commitment of marriage.
Freedom to Marry Day, February 12th, aptly falls in the midst of Freedom to Marry Week, February 10-16. It's one more chance for gay and non-gay people to reach out to their circles - families, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and fellow citizens -- and make the ask that moves people to action. Freedom to Marry Week is held every year, right around President Lincoln's Birthday and Valentine's Day, and Freedom to Marry provides tools and ideas (PDF) to help everyone find a way to connect and make a difference.
Much as we want people to understand that the words gay and marriage do belong together, we don't want "gay marriage." It's the freedom to marry that matters - for all of us - and the way to secure it is by talking to others. And it's the personal ask - each one of us raising our voice and not just assuming that those around us are there, or can't get there - that makes all the difference. Turn to the people in your life now, and say, "Happy Freedom to Marry Week!"
Comments for this post are now closed
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
What people who want to deny the right of marriage to others really stand for is promiscuity and faithlessness. The foundation of our society is only strengthened by adding more loving, committed relationships, and clearly, serial monogamist heterosexuals constitute the group most endangering marriage, today.
I think all the marriage hype is 50% headgame, and 50% hype, and at the end of the day it's probably the IRS trying to figure out how to get people to check the box where it says 'married, filing jointly' or whatever.
Well, in this day and age when you might not be able to hold onto your house, despite however many people might be in your household, they can take their family-based propaganda, and stuff it. People need to think about finding other hobbies, here. Especially people in the population boom countries, like Mexico, parts of Africa, and some asian countries. Growth, ok, fine, but think about it. 6.6 billion and counting...
Are Americans across the country really celebrating Freedom To Marry Day or is it just one small little demographic?
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period (unless you live in Utah, then it's a man and a woman and another woman and some underage teenage cousin).
In Canada, they passed gay marriage and nothing changed. It still snows in the winter, people still watch hockey and drink beer, and Tim Horton's is still packed.
The arguments against gay marriage are so weak that a high school girl can best Karl Rove in an impromptu debate. If the US passed gay marriage tomorrow, within five years the only people who would notice the difference are the gays who get married and their families.
If you don't like same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same-sex.
Marriage should be a union of two people who love each other and are committed. Who cares if they're the same sex or the opposite sex? Marriage is a commitment to love and cherish another person, and wherever there is love, there is God.
"One small little demographic"? You mean like the U.S. African-American population? 13.4%?
Do African Americans have trouble marrying? I don't believe there are any government regulations regarding African Americans and marriage.
Not any more. Years ago a lot of enlightened whites joined with blacks in overturning such laws.
Thank you so much, Evan, for reminding us that marriage equality is the central civil rights issue of our generation.
We WILL make this happen. It's time.
PS Happy Freedom to Marry Day everybody!
Wow! That was an awesome read. Thank you very much. This is one of my pet causes. I love how you choose to word the issue. You make wonderful points. I'm a heterosexual, but I care deeply about gay "issues." It is disgusting to witness senseless hatred due to one's own fear. I work as a family law attorney, and I would LOVE to see it become easier for homosexual couples to adopt children. Any kid who has two parents who love each other is doing pretty damn good. As an attorney, as a human being, I have NEVER heard one single logical argument for the denying gay people the right to marry. Pure ignorance.
Odd how so many supporters of "family values" deny same sex couples the marriage contract which is designed to protect families.
Perhaps if they could internalize the idea that same sex couples love each other just as straight couples do, and hold the same aspirations for their families. I loved the comment in "Outfoxed" by the man who said that showing gay couples marrying sort of backfired when people saw that most homosexuals are "regular folks". Oh for the day when we can accept everyone, no matter how "alternative" they may be.
The big secret is that most gays are boring, ordinary people living quiet, ordinary lives.
We are not all "fabulous", living glamorous, exciting, bohemian lives. Most of us have jobs, pay taxes, watch TV, read books, pursue banal hobbies like cooking, and hang out with our friends. Some of us have children; many of us have cats or dogs. Lots of gays go to church.
The biggest difference is that we vote, because we know the stakes are too high not to.
Why is marriage of any type (homo or hetero) governments business?
get govt out of the marriage business, eliminate the supporting bureaucracy and pocket the savings.
why oh why do we so willingly support government being to intrusive in our private lives?
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE. WHEN TWO PEOPLE LOVE EACH OTHER, NO MATTER WHAT SEX, IT SHOULD ME A JOYOUS OCCASION..ONE THAT SHOULD BE CELEBRATED ALWAYS. WHATS UP WITH THESE EVANGELICALS(SUPPOSEDLY) AND THEIR ANTI-LOVE AGENDA? BUT THEN AGAIN, TAKE A LOOK AT BUSH. A SUPPOSED BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN WHO DOES THE OPPOSITE OF EVERY THING THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACHES. WHERE IS EQAULITY, HELP FOR THE HOMELESS AND POOR, AIDS EDUCATION... I COULD GO ON AND ON. ALSO, THERE IS NO MENTION OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. HE NEEDS SOME INSTRUCTION FROM SOMEONE WHO HAS REALLY READ THE GOOD BOOK, AND HAS HAD IT DECIVERED THE PROPER WAY. MOST OF WHAT JESUS SAID WAS NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERAL. PARABLES MY DEAR. PARABLES. ELEVEN MORE MONTHS, AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE A PRESIDENT WITH A BRAIN IN HIS HEAD AND WORK ON THE PROBLEMS OF THIS COUNTRY AS WELL AS THE DAMAGE HE'S DONE TO THE ENTIRE WORLD, AND STAY OUT OF PEOPLES PERSONAL LIVES.
If you don't like same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same-sex.
-Wanda Sykes
We have no right to marry as we choose. Ask the Mormons. There are no marches for them, because they don't have similar political and Hollywood clout.
Being a Mormon is a matter of free choice.
what does that comment have to do with the topic at hand? absolutely nothing, kundera.
I just don't understand the religious bigots. Who cares who marries whom.
"Yes we can?" Well no, actually, we can't. And with Donnie McClurkin enjoying four years of East Room gigs, you can bet we won't any time soon.
Thank you! Why is this SO ignored?? What would have happened if Obama had associated with someone who was openly anti-semitic or preached that women are to submit to their husbands? He wouldn't be winning now. He knows when he can pander and when he can't. The GBLTQ community is expendable to him.
Openly homophobic Hillary Clinton supporters:
10K per month, SC campaign consultant, Rev Darrell Jackson
SC State Senators Matthews & Short who voted to ban same sex marriage
Bishop Eddie Long, who led a march of thousands of Georgians in support of an anti-gay marriage amendment
I can go on...
oh and there's Harold Mayberry about whom Hillary Clinton declared "was committed to equal rights" while the Rev Mayberry has compared homosexuality as akin to thievery.
Just exactly which holy person do you plan to vote for? And please don't say John McCain.
poppyseed does a good job pointing out that there is no perfect candidate, including Hillary. But the final point about not voting for McCain smacks of moral relativism: Obama might not be out front and vocal on this issue, but McCain will be a lot worse. Isn't moral relativism a fallacy? If supporting equal rights for gays is the right thing to do, then isn't it the right thing to do? Period?
go poppyseed! so very smart. I wish you were advising the Obama campaign. sigh.
WHY do people assume that if you are critical of Obama, you are a supporter of Clinton. I don't support her either. I am forced to vote dimocrat because I (have to) believe that a dimocrat will probably do something about global climate change, and so, I vote my son's interest and not my own. But, really, I don't support any of them. If I had an alternative - like a Green party or Socialist party candidate - he or she would get my vote.
And what has "holy" got to do with anything? I want someone who is not afraid to stand up for ALL minorities and not just when it is convenient or serves their purposes. That doesn't mean Obama or Clinton. They are both run-of-the-mill SOP politicians, despite the "change" propaganda. The only politician who is not running on a platform of change is the one who is running for re-election.
And since BO wouldn't allow photos taken of his highness with Gavin Newsom of SF, you can take that 'no we can't' to the bank if he becomes the nominee. There's no way McCain will help change equal rights accordingly.
And he's the change candidate NOT if your Gay he dosen't want to tarnish his standing with the Black Clergy which are more hateful to gays than any other preachers. And yes I know from Experince on a daily basis I live next to one and I have never had such Angry and hateful things screamed at me for just being Gay and when I say screamed I mean screamed for the whole Neighborhood to hear every time I walk outside my home.
Obama will deal with it as a civil rights issue and all this debate will end.
I am getting the sense that you may have some other unresolved issues with the black community that may be testing your credibility on this topic. I could be wrong, but for you to assert "the Black Clergy which are more hateful to gays than any other preachers" suggests you have a very very small view of the world. Ever hear of Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson? James Dobson? White guys. White clergy. White preachers.
Sorry, but wierd for you to inject race into this discussion. Isn't all the hate bad, no matter who it comes from? Why the desire to quantify by race? I'm sorry you had a bad personal experience with a black person who was homophobic, but I've been punched, pushed, spit on, threatened and run off the road by some pretty homophobic white people in my lifetime.
ask that fool why he is so obsessed with your sex life. and remind him that it isn't very godly to hate.
"Change some of us can believe in." The rest of us can drop dead. Thanks BO.
So you support the 'freedom' of siblings to marry each other?
How about the freedom of parents marrying their children?
How about the freedom for a man to marry 10 women, or a woman to marry 10 men?
How about the freedom for a prostitute to 'love' anyone, anyplace, at any time without government intervention?
How free is the freedom you support? I'm guessing that you want freedom for your own pet group, but are more than willing to slam the door on others that seem 'strange' to you.
That's all you got?
In the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where our Supreme Judicial Court and our legislature have upheld our Constitutional Right to Marry, without discrimination based on sexual orientation, the world has not fallen off the edge, our buses still run, parents are not marrying children, dogs are not marrying cats, really...Get A Grip!
You probably have not done much research about this, but do you know why the Mass Supreme Judicial Court said gay marriage was constitutional? Was it because they said everyone and everything should be free to marry wily nily? No, it's because our constitution has an equal protection clause that includes same sex orientation.
Your arguments are eerily similar to those offered by those opposed to interracial marriage back in the day. Perhaps some of the bigots of the past look with prescience at gay marriage and say "we warned you: first interracial marriage, now gay marriage." I'm actually fine with that.
Why not pick a more ridiculous irrelevant scenario, like the freedom to marry your dog or the freedom to marry a corpse you dug up at the cemetery?
I can only speak for myself. But the freedom that I support is quite free. As long as we are all treated fairly and equally, go for it. Marry a chicken. There is a good argument for applying tax law to humans only, so no tax breaks for man-chicken partnerships. And a man can marry ten women if he wants, or vice versa. As long as they are all adults and mentally competent. But it's hard enough to get along with one spouse, so that's evidence of incompetence to marry. Parent-child love and sibling love is weird, maybe good evidence of incompetence, so that's out.
'Love' a prostitute if that's what you both want to do. Just do it in private, and at your own peril. For it is illegal. Please make sure she's an adult and not intoxicated.
Freedom is my pet.
Wow. I was so excited last night about Obama's victories that it led to bizarre drunken ramblings about chicken marriage. Seriously though. Come on! It may be that one in ten people are gay. I think that's enough for us to consider it fairly common and even (gulp) normal. It's just not fair or reasonable to compare it to these ridiculous situations.
Dude,
Relax, please. No one will ever force you to marry another guy, I promise.
I know that your people had to give up the polygamy and child marriage thing quite a while back, is that what you're still mad about?
I usually try to be more respectful than this, but here I'm obviously not. I've just lost my patience with bigotry. I don't think Mormons should be treated badly either. You just don't have the right to lord it over others. Sorry.
Straight but not narrow,
MamaBird
Posted February 12, 2008 | 03:37 PM (EST)