I just finished viewing the Human Rights Campaign's website on "Marriage and Relationship Recognition," and I have trouble getting past the fact that it has to be so complicated for people in same-sex couples. Questions such as "Can we file our taxes as married?" and "Should we register as domestic partners in multiple jurisdictions?" and "How do survivor benefits for domestic partnership benefits work?" to "Marriage for Same-sex Couples: Considerations for Employers," leave my head spinning. And this is all about who you decide to love and commit yourself to. Why is it different for some people when civil rights and the protection of individual freedoms are the bedrock of the most special democracy in the history of the world?
In my current job as Secretary of State of Ohio, my duty has been front and center to protect individual freedom such as the most sacred form of speech--voting. When a person votes in a system that is free, fair, open and honest, each voice is heard in the determination of the questions of self-governance. The founding document of the American Revolution leading to the birth of the United States contains the basic tenet that each person is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
For LGBT couples, the right to marry is elemental. It is time to make that right available to all American couples, whether they are heterosexual or same-sex. This is a family values issue.
For those LGBT couples who have children, the problems become even greater without the right of marriage. As the number of LGBT-headed families continues to increase, so does the necessity for marriage equality for them and their children.
Marriage equality is critical for stable families and the welfare of children in changing social environments. When the commitment and rights of marriage are not available to a couple facing difficult times, an unexpected breakup or death can shatter an LGBT family, leaving not just the partners, but also the children, vulnerable and at risk of even greater emotional, social and financial loss.
Custody issues for LGBT couples with children but without marriage are fraught with uncertainty. Jurisdictional differences, the respective starting points of the parties (was one member of the couple coming out of a heterosexual relationship?), attitudes of some judges toward LGBT individuals and whether the parent is biological or adoptive often affect the outcome.
When an LGBT couple, with or without children, is bi-national, problems increase. Marriage equality is the law in the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain and South Africa. However, the U.S. definition of "family" for immigration purposes does not include LGBT couples. Without this, many U.S. LGBT citizens have found their only alternative is to emigrate with their partners to a country with laws that afford them the opportunity to live together without fear of separation because of antiquated laws that do not recognize their families.
The "Uniting American Families Act," sponsored by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) in the House (H.R. 1024) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in the Senate (S. 424) in the current 111th Congress would allow same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to be sponsored much like spouses are for immigration purposes. Of course, if marriage equality were the law of the land, the "Uniting American Families Act" would not be needed, since same-sex couples could be spouses, and no law change would be necessary. No specialized category of "permanent partnership" or "permanent partner" created by the legislation (remember the "separate but equal" concept?) would have to be created, implemented or litigated.
Even in countries not recognizing marriage equality, common sense immigration equality has been legislated: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. (For those concerned about fraud, it should be pointed out that none of these countries has reported fraud associated with this policy.)
In 1988, I applied for an appointment to the City Council of Columbus, Ohio. I was not chosen, but I chuckle when I think of the calls I received to vet me for the post. One of them was from the leader of a very conservative sect of our local Democratic party. He wanted to know if I supported legislation being considered by city council to allow domestic partnership benefits. I told him that if same-sex couples were permitted to be married, we wouldn't need such special legislation, and that I would prefer to see that. I don't think that was the answer he was looking for or expected.
Here we are 21 years later, and finally, some states are moving progressively to recognize the simple fact that human rights belong to everyone. I believe that we, as a society, can and must quickly recover from the hateful actions taken against our nation's LGBT citizens and innocent children in so many states, including Ohio, in measures such as DOMA, gay marriage constitutional bans, and bans on LGBT adoptions. We must move toward the simple, human dignity of fairness, equality and respect for all persons in our laws, our policies and our actions.
I continue to simmer when I think of the recent legislative and constitutional amendments specifically denying equal rights to LGBT citizens that were initiated by political operatives to stoke the fires of hatred and division among ordinary citizens who would otherwise be living without this heightened and unnecessary rancor and dissension. I continue to simmer as I recognize that these actions were initiated primarily for the purpose of retaining power by a small group of people who have hurt many innocents, LGBT and straight alike, for their selfish and greedy purposes. We have not benefited from this, and it is time for marriage equality to be available to all, straight or LGBT. We are a community, and in these times, we must support and depend on each other as people do in a real community.
After a dreadful past eight years birthed by a process fueled by hatred (yes, Ohio decided the 2004 election, using the gay marriage ban as the ultimate wedge to drive a record number of evangelical Christian and conservative voters to the polls), we now have the chance to shape the foundation of this century to be one less violent, more compassionate, more responsible and accountable, and one full of opportunity and hope. A good start is to recognize family in all the ways it emerges, for a stronger social fabric that will support us as we pursue the founding ideals of our country for years to come.
Marriage equality's time is now.
I mean....duh?
You are trying to use the "slippery slope" argument about polygamy here, and it won't work, because marriage equality means simply that any pair of consenting adults can get married, provided that neither of them is already married!
Anyone partaking in the civil ceremony should be accorded all civil rights due ... period. And no discrimination should be tolerated under any circumstances. I'm not just talking about things like company benefits, tax code, property rights, death benefits ... I'm talking about total non-discrimination. If your health club offers 1/2 off for spouses - well, you should qualify. If the local bar says spouses drink free on Tuesday nights ... well, you get the idea.
Nothing less than that can be considered fair.
Sanctity. According to Webster's dictionary:
1. saintliness or holiness
2. the fact of being sacred or inviolable
3. anything held sacred
Holiness. Sacred. Words from the realm of religion, not law.
This argument is about religion. Marriage as a religious concept has been unconstitutionally enshrined by U.S. law since the beginning of the republic. The First Amendment to the Constitution demands that the legal concept of "marriage" be stripped of its religious ramifications and thus, legal marriage must be opened to all citizens.
Marriage is the jewel in the crown of Christian, heterosexual privilege, and the old guard is fighting like holy hell to hold on to the dominance that it once had.
Good-bye Old Guard. And good riddance.
Since marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman, any homosexual has the equal right to marry any person of the opposite gender that everyone else has. See! No discrimination, no human rights violation.
1900: No woman possessed the right to vote... they never did since the founding of this country... ya know, cause that's the way it has always been.... so why should we change it? Afterall, women are just second-class citizens... and really, in essence, they are equal- in regards to one another.
See what a silly argument that was?
Then: Women not equal to men
Today: Homosexuals not equal to Heterosexuals
Tomorrow: Equality for all!
So for all those who would rather not progress with the rest of society... too bad... we'll just leave you behind then.
Why are taxpayers wasting our money maintaining records of who is currently cohabiting with whom?
Back in the days before DNA, marriage was used to establish paternity (since no one really ever knew if mommies were telling the truth).
We no longer need marriage to establish paternity, so the best solution is to eliminate civil marriages and the attendant waste of resources keeping track of who is cohabiting with whom.
There should be no tax or government benefits based on with whom a person is living.
Problem solved. People can freely marry whomever or whatever they want since it will have no legal consequences.
Let's focus on reasonable goals and just try to make it that gay people have the same civil rights as everyone else and legalize gay marriage. A majority will support this within the next 20 or so years as the younger generations reach voting age.
Civil marriage serves no useful purpose other than to those who profit financially from the arrangement. Which does not include taxpayers who pay for all those resources being made available for those who are.
Civil marriages should be eliminated.
It's possible that the current court will overturn Baker when it considers the suit being brought by Olson and Boies but given the current makeup of the court, I give it a 50-50 chance at best. But who knows what the court is going to look like in two years or so when the case is likely to be on the docket
In the mean time, given the current fact that it is a States' issue, not a federal one, proponents of SSM are going to have to slug it out State by State and convince either the State courts, State legislatures, or the voters that they should allow SSM.
Second, racial bias isn't the same thing. Your argument is weak.
Not before.