What's there to "Get" about Marriage Equality?

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.

Comments

[JayJonson]

All these anti-gay comments are dispiriting, but it just shows that there are no rational reasons to oppose marriage equality, only prejudice. Unfortunately, there are huge numbers of people of various levels of bigotry in this country. They are primarily among the older cohorts, but they are powerful enough to deny equal protection under the law for gay people for many years. Eventually, of course, these people will be regarded with the same disdain we now regard those who impeded women's right to vote or black people's rights to equality before the law. But until they die off, it will be slow going in this hypocritical country that is always talking about freedom and equality, but rarely achieves it.

[carsntrucks]

Marriage equality? You're not talking about any other type of marriage besides gay marriage. Oh please. Let's drop the homily and be honest.

[Cosmic-Zantor]

Marriage equality and gay marriage are two terms for the same concept...why does it matter which you use? Of course marriage equality means gay marriage.

I mean....duh?

[LeftRight]

We are saying that society has determined that a legal marriage is comprised of two consenting adults for the purpose of making a stable family unit (with or without children). To then DENY that legal marriage to a pair of consenting adults because they are both the same gender is unequal. To allow them civil unions (which do NOT have all the benefits of marriage) while reserving marriage for a couple of straight people is "separate but equal" which the SCOTUS determined more than half a century ago was Unconstitutional!

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!

[bannorhill]

The "slippery slope" argument does work. The 9th circuit court of appeals used it (point 17) to rule for DOMA in Smelt v Orange Co.

[Nyland8]

The problem, it seems, is that the word "marriage" has two different definitions - one religious and one secular - and that they overlap in meaning. Personally, I'd be fine with the state using a different word or phrase for its legal matters. Then, if a straight couple wants to "marry", they'd require at least one ceremony to satisfy the government, and another if they wish to conform to some religious rites. From the "legal" standpoint, only the civil ceremony need be taken and it would be applied to any adult couple capable of mutual consent. Any religious ceremony or exchange of vows would and should be optional.

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.

[dpavsek]

Your points are well taken. In many countries, you must go through a civil ceremony - registration - for the legal union to be recognzied. Furthermore, a religious ceremony without the civil ceremony confers no rights. It is about time the States got out of the "marriage business" - leave that to the churches - and simply centered on the regulation of a "contract" entered into by two qualifying adults. I use the word qualifying because I think it is still in the purview of the State to prohibit incest. I am more than happy to have the term "marriage" used for religious purposes and "civil unions" used for civil or secular purposes. Furthermore, for "civil" rights to be conferred, all couples should have to go through a civil registration - let's stop giving churches the right to create a legal contract.

[OnBorrowedTime]

Ever wonder why those opposing equal marriage rights consistently refer to the "sanctity" of marriage?

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.

[BacktotheFront]

This argument is about the definition of man. That, more than religion is the hangup.

[BacktotheFront]

Definition of a Male. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/male

[MiddleRiver]

OK, so how does this whole sacred thing work when divorce, a civil decree, invalidates the "sacred" marriage? I guess marriage is so sacred that same sex couples can't have it, but not so sacred that straight couples can't cast it aside and get another? Pretty flimsy logic.

[columbusweb]

you'll definitely have my vote jennifer.

[Isabelle101]

What is so difficult for homosexuals to get about the equality of marriage as it is?

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.

[maddasein]

I am really tired of this irrational argument against same sex marriage. Really, can people like yourself not come up with a better argument? Well, since there really is no, none, zip logical arguments for why gay people should not be able to marry the person of their choice, I suppose all you guys have are silly/nonsensical commentary.

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.

[BacktotheFront]

according to you "Then: Women not equal to men", physically they are not. As far as rights, they are equal. I think you need to reword your post, the final conclusion I get out of your post is that you now have to change the definition of "man" to make sense of what you are trying to make rationale of.

[YoMama]

Isabelle also thinks left-handers have the choice to write with their right hands.

[FearlessFreep]

Just like in the time before Loving vs. Virginia, people who loved someone of a different race had the same right to marry someone of the same race.

[Isabelle101]

A persons race is not a persons behavior.

[Cosmic-Zantor]

Marriage is a man made concept, it is a word, and the definition can be altered quite easily. It already has in several countries and several US states, and not one negative consequence has resulted.

Please explain to me, specifically, why you oppose gay marriage? Please explain how it would impact your life, in any way, ever? I'd appreciate if you refrain from religious mythology, as we have separation of church and state in this country, and religious reasoning should be invalid in the eyes of the law.

I really am curious, because I am completely bewildered by opposition to same sex marriage.

[maddasein]

I've asked this same question over and over.... and all I get is silence..... or just the same argument reworded and regurgitated.

I am as bewildered as you are. Believe me. I cannot fathom how my being able to enter into a legally binding contract with my partner, which would protect our financial and property interests, allow for each of us to make medical decisions for the other, and make it easier to adopt children (who desperately need loving homes) will in any way take away other people's liberties... or cause the destruction of society.

The only conclusion that I can come to is that the opposition is just completely riddled by fear of progress or they are anti-freedom and anti everything this country is supposed to stand for.

[BacktotheFront]

Must have something to do with the definition of a man and a woman according to society since the beginning of time. Perhaps if you are willing to acknowledge certain things, people might be willing to lend an ear. The definition of "man" of what defines a male now takes on a new meaning. For example, in plumbing, among many other professions, there is a need of use of male and female terminology and is quite natural and fits. Now as to be proper in terminology we might have to expand the meaning of "Man, Male" to be politically correct. (There could be "Man Hetro" and "Man Gay") That would be your concession. No pun intended.

[miriada]

What's LGBT? Souds snotty... I refuse to be called a 4-letter word unless I know what it is and agree... could anybody decipher?

[Cosmic-Zantor]

It is a widely used abbreviation, very common, that stands for Lesbian Gay Bi Transsexual. You really never heard of it until now?

[Tuckerndfw]

Actually, a better question is why do we need civil marriages at all?

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.

[Cosmic-Zantor]

This is something that will never happen and that almost nobody would support.

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.

[Tuckerndfw]

People do not need permission from the state to cohabit.

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.

[SUIGENEROUSLA]

Wow. When a US Senate candidate and statwwide officeholder from Ohio has the confidence to say this, things are changing and very quickly. She just got a guaranteed contibution from me. I suggest you do likewise friends.

[Romulus]

Another way of interpreting the SCOTUS ruling in Baker v. Nelson is that when it dismissed the appeal " "for want of [a] substantial federal question", it was saying that there is not federal authority regarding SSM, that each State has the authority to decide what constitutes legal marriage in that State. Six States have defined marriage to include SSM; they have the legal right to do so. Thirty States have defined marriage as only between one man and one woman; they have the legal right to do so.

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.

[Skylar Baker-Jordan]

I think there is a substantial federal question with regards to DOMA laws (at the state and federal level), for it seems that these laws violate the full faith and credit clause. To my knowledge, the only time a state can reject a marriage performed in another state as invalid is if it's a same-sex marriage. Isn't that why underage couples always head across state lines to wed in country songs?

[Romulus]

I have no doubt that DOMA is a substantial federal question as it it a federal law. In fact, I think that Olson and Boies should have challenged DOMA rather than the CSC PROP 8 ruling.

[Joel Redman]

The ruling on Baker v. Nelson does not say that banning gay marriage is constitutional, what it says is that the specific reasoning used (Loving v. VA) does not apply to this case.

[Romulus]

Loving v. Virginia was not the only argument the plaintifs used. They also argued that Minnesota violated the 1st, 8th, 9th, and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. By dismissing the suit for lack of a substantial federal question, SCOTUS affirmed the Minnesota SC ruling that banning SSM did not violate these federal amendments.

[Jasper Lawrence]

I fail to see the reason why gay marriage SHOULDN'T be legal. There really are no drawbacks to allowing gay people to get married. What, are straight people afraid they're going to be forced to dissolve their marriages and become gay? The only possible reason I can come up with for opposing same-sex marriage is "Homosexuality creeps me out." It's really just stupid.

[bkbzipper]

great article!

[Sebbybear]

This is one of the best, most well reasoned and simple takes on the marriage equality issue that I've read. Ohio is lucky to have Ms. Brunner. Our nation needs many more leaders like her.

[TotalRecall9]

You have equal rights. You can get married to the opposite sex just like everybody else.

[RainbowPhoenix]

Fourty years ago, people were saying that everyone had the same rights because everyone can marry someone of the same race. That argument doesn't work then and it doesn't work now.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

Wrong. One entailed civil rights & one does not. Is not a civil rights issue merely because YOU want it to be.

[TotalRecall9]

First, I'm shocked my comment got past the mods.

Second, racial bias isn't the same thing. Your argument is weak.

[TruthJusticeForAll]

EXACTLY!!

[TheMisFit]

Well, then that just shows your ignorance of the subject. Being gay is not a choice - it's an orientation - an immutable and unchangeable trait - thus making the denial of rights based on that - discrimination.

[daltexman]

This type of thinking is unbelievable. I am amazed that there are so many people who have no clue -- yeah, I think it is a great idea for a gay person to marry someone of the opposite sex and deceive them. Really smart..........

[TruthJusticeForAll]

I understand you have no clue. I have not seen anyone advocating a gay person marry someone of the opposite sex. That is not the issue. In order to invoke civil rights concerns, gays would have to be denied the right to marry. They are not denied that right. They simply have no right to a same sex marriage.

[Cosmic-Zantor]

This argument is a joke. You know it's meaningless.

[SantaFeConservative]

Homosexuals can have the same rights and responsibilities in a civil union or whatever else you may want to call gay "marriage". But marriage is between a man and a woman. Gay "marriage" is similar, but different. Call it something different and go about your business. Don't give me any of this separate but equal silliness ... we have separate restrooms and locker rooms for men and woman. That is separate but equal also. Or do you want to get rid of those separate facilities?

[RainbowPhoenix]

If it gives the same things then it doesn't need to be called something different.

[LintLass]

You can make that complaint when actual equal-in-a­ll-but-nam­e civil unions are the law of the land in all fifty states with full Federal authority.

Not before.

[TheMisFit]

So if we call it "gay marriage" instead of "marriage" are you okay with that? It's similar but different, as you say. Cool - glad we've settled that and that you are now for "gay marriage." : )

[Cosmic-Zantor]

The definition of marriage has changed. Marriage is not just between a man and a woman in Canada, several other countries, and several other US states.

The word is changed. It's a man made concept and as such it can be re-defined. Pretty easily, in fact.

[bannorhill]

Who decides the "new" definition?

[OnBorrowedTime]

Santa Fe Conservative, I know you don't care, but just in case others accept your bogus claim, here we go:

According to the Government Accounting Office, there are approximately 1400 rights, legal obligations, and acknowledgments associated with the legal status known as "married." Only about 300 of those reside at the state level. The remaining 1,138 all reside at the federal level.

Therefore there is no state in the union that grants to same-sex couples anything near the equivalent of "marriage" by any other name -- including "marriage"! The best we can get under the current regime is about 24% of the privileges enjoyed by opposite-sex couples.

If it were just a matter of terminology, I wouldn't care. But clearly, it's not.