Gay Marriage: A Question of Fairness
Earlier this month, the New Hampshire legislature took another step in our country's ongoing struggle to ensure full equality for gays and lesbians by voting to permit same-sex couples in their state to legally enter into civil marriages. The vote makes New Hampshire the sixth state in the country -- along with Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Maine -- to provide equal marriage rights to all its residents, and it now leaves Rhode Island as the only New England state that does not permit same-sex marriage.
To me, the issue of same-sex marriage boils down to a question of basic fairness. Gays and lesbians have contributed to the diverse fabric of Rhode Island and the rest of the country for generations, strengthening our communities in innumerable ways. We all know someone who is openly gay or lesbian, and almost all of us share the same basic aspirations: a safe town and an affordable home to live in; a good job to provide us and our families with economic security; good schools for our children; quality health care; and, perhaps most importantly, someone to love and share our lives with. Once you acknowledge that homosexuality exists not by choice, the next obvious step is to grant gays and lesbians the same liberties and freedoms as every other American.
As a proud Rhode Islander who thinks of my state as a leader when it comes to treating others with dignity and respect, it troubles me to think we've fallen behind in granting our gay and lesbian family members and friends something as fundamentally important as the right to have their relationships fully recognized by the state. That is not in keeping with Rhode Island's proud history of inclusion and progressiveness, which can be traced back to its very foundation. With the granting of the state's charter in 1663, Charles II created a democratic republic unprecedented in the New World, establishing the country's first secular government, unaffiliated with any church; granting individual freedom of religion and intellectual expression; and establishing the first representative republic in a country where all the other colonies were ruled by governors appointed by the King. Under this remarkable, gender-neutral charter, Rhode Island became one of the most important colonies in the New World. While most people today take for granted these principles in the American system of government, in the 17th century, it was a bold, even dangerous, new experiment.
I understand that the issue of same-sex marriage can often be difficult to grapple with. For some, their opposition is rooted in their upbringings or the teachings of their religion, with many opponents of same-sex marriage citing fears about their church having to perform those marriages as cause for their opposition. However, those fears are unfounded, as pending legislation in Rhode Island and laws in the six states that currently permit same-sex marriage deal exclusively with civil, not religious, marriage. To further clarify this fact, several states that recognize same-sex marriage, including New Hampshire, added language to their marriage bills expressly protecting the right of churches to choose not to recognize same-sex marriages if they go against their religious teachings, a model that could certainly be followed in Rhode Island to appease any state legislators with lingering concerns about church autonomy.
Another argument frequently heard by opponents of same sex marriage -- in particular elected officials -- is that this issue was forced on citizens by activist judges and that their constituents don't support it. This claim, too, is false. All but two of the states permitting same-sex marriage have had their marriage laws passed or affirmed by votes in their respective state legislatures, with legislators who voted for same-sex marriage overwhelmingly winning reelection in the states that have held elections since those marriage votes were taken. Here in Rhode Island, a recent Brown University poll showed an overwhelming 60 percent majority of state residents in favor of same-sex marriage, with only 31 percent opposed. That poll further underscores the fact that it is long-past time for Rhode Island to pass a marriage bill granting same-sex couples the rights they deserve.
I served the residents of Rhode Island as both Mayor of Warwick and a United States Senator, and in that time I have dealt with my share of controversial issues. I have seen people of diverse backgrounds and divergent political affiliations come together to do what is right when the best interests of our state's citizens were at stake. Rhode Island legislators should follow in the footsteps of our fellow New England states and be true to our pioneering history of tolerance by advancing a marriage equality bill. But for that to happen, all of us in Rhode Island who believe in full equality need to do our part by voicing support for same-sex marriage loudly and clearly.
Loading comments…
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
Chafee for Governor
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=85551242499&ref=ts
http://www.chafeeforgovernor.com/
It's so common for the most important issue to be ignored, and this article is no exception. What we have to do is generate a resurgence of appreciation for fathers and mothers and the unique, distinctive, powerful contributions they make to the upbringing of every human being, except of course for those who have to overcome the handicap of missing one or both of them. The biggest myth in this whole debate is that society is just as well off giving social and economic support to arrangements in which, for instance, a father is deliberately, intentionally absent in the life of a child. How many criminals, run-aways, drug addicts, and unwed mothers will it take for society to wake up to the fact that it makes a huge difference that we support father-mother families only and that we reverse all the social approval that is now be lavished on couples who aren't married but living together, adulterers hanging out with desperate housewives, and couples of the same sex?
How many criminals, runaways, drug addicts, and unwed mothers have nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
Remember, not all heterosexual families are stable, nor do they necessarily provide wholesome environments for their children, as the widespread levels of child abuse and the 50% divorce rate clearly show.
Before touting the glories of heterosexual marriage and parenthood too quickly, remember that the most frequently reported type of incest is father-daughter incest. [Herman, Judith (1981). “Father-Daughter Incest.” Harvard. p. 282.]
That aside, the article hits the most important issue at hand concerning marriage equality: The provision of Federal protection for same sex and opposite sex couples to form families having equal legal standing and protection.
Within the context of committed marriage relationships, spouses -- regardless of sexual orientation -- provide love and security to each other and their children, promote fidelity, and create a nurturing environment for their children and contribute to the social endeavor to build strong, vibrant communities.
A person’s ability to establish a loving, long lasting committed relationship with another person and care for and raise children, if they choose, is no more dependent on one’s sexual orientation than one’s gender, skin color, ethnicity or eye color.
The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because “fathers do not mother.” Psychology Today explained that “fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.”
Fathering expert John Snarey explains that children who roughhouse with their fathers learn that biting, kicking and other forms of physical violence are not acceptable. They learn self-control by being told when “enough is enough” and when to “settle down.” Girls and boys both learn a healthy balance between timidity and aggression
there will always be ignorant homophobic bigots who hide behind thier religion to justify thier ignorance. we know that for a fact. progress is slow. it takes bravery for public officials to do the right thing.
Thank you for standing up for equality, Senator Chafee.
Real change and equality are coming. It will not happen with the stroke of President Obama's pen, but will take a multi-front effort:
1) Small victories, such as "some" federal benefits extended to same-sex couples
2) State-by-state Gay Marriage such as in Massachussetts, Vermont, New Hampshire (keep working in your state)
3) Challenges to anti-gay amendments and DOMA and DADT that make their way to the Supreme Court
4) A split Supreme Court as we have now will pass judgement on a case as historical as Brown v. Board of Education that will lead to...
5) Legislation in Congress establishing equal protections for the LGBT community
In this manner, our rights will be solidified as working through our Constitutional system, not as being dictated down to the People by a "liberal" President.
Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks... they had patience and the spirit of non-violence (non-confrontational) that validated the simple statement worn by picketers in Birmingham -- "I am a man."
With this same commitment and perseverance, we will also be able to stand and say "I am a human." and deserve equal rights.
Patience and perseverance. Our time will come. Freedom will ring.
TO: Catechismoncall, RE: Your post at 06:22 PM on 06/18/2009
The issue at hand is two people, regardless of sexual orientation, being able to enter a marriage contract with all the responsibilities required of, as well as the rights and privileges conferred by, Federal law.
Because two same--sex people wish to have the freedom to marry in a legal manner equal to two opposite--sex people, the introduction of more than two partners in a marriage is logically outside the scope of this discussion.
Since marriage is a legal contract, discussing the ages of the parties entering into it is reasonable. However, there is no Federal statute currently defining a minimum marriageable age -- i.e. the age at which a person is considered legally competent to enter a marriage contract, either as of right, or with other forms of consent. Additionally, there is considerable variance among the States with Kansas permitting marriage at the age of 15 years (with parental consent)
In the United States, all states require a couple be 18 in order to marry without parental permission with the exception of Nebraska, which requires an age of 19. New York and North Carolina provisionally permit marriage to children over the age of 13. Mississippi and Missouri provide statutory allowances for children at, or below, the age of 14 to marry. New Hampshire allows 13 year--olds to marry, with special provisions.
Great article Senator Chafee -- totally agree with you . . .
I miss you as my Senator . . we now have casar milktoast
B/S. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE IS A FABULOUS SENATOR>
I like Chafee but Whitehouse is no casar milktoast (which my friend you should learn how to spell - it is casper milquetoast.
"I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience."
-- Coretta Scott King
"For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any other group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law."
I say that citizens did have their say on marriage equality, way back when they ratified constitutions that guarantee equal treatment under the law. It's un-American to sift through citizens' rights and give a thumbs up or down on based on prejudice or religious convictions.
I raise my glass of coffee milk to Senator Chafee. Here's to marriage equality in Rhode Island.
Mind if I use that one? I will be interested to see what the answer is. Probably the lame comeback that "Gays ARE treated equally -- any man can marry any woman...etc." And I have an answer for that one.
Maybe the solution is that there should be no marriage for anyone at all. After all, marriage between a man and a woman puts us on a slippery slope toward marriage between dogs and cats, or between peanut butter and chocolate. (Mmmmm, the marriage of peanut butter and chocolate. Argggh.)
Mr. Chafee Writes:
"To me, the issue of same-sex marriage boils down to a question of basic fairness. Gays and lesbians have contributed to the diverse fabric of Rhode Island and the rest of the country for generations, strengthening our communities in innumerable ways."
If getting married is based on one's contribution to society, then why don't we let a 14-year old marry a 35-year old, for example? Certainly they have both contributed something to society. In this same vein, we could argue that three male Mexican day laborers have contributed much to America, so the three of them should be able to marry...We need to have a definition of marriage - clearly - or else we will have trouble functioning as a society. I would argue that the one definition all civilizations have used since time immemorial is the most logical. Thank you.
14 Year old can not give legal concent.
How do you know all civs over all time have used your definition?
Does this mean I can keep concubines?
What about the pre-statehood Mormans?
What specific harm will a broader definition do? Well, beside scare you?
Your concept of "time immemorial" is rather selective.
Up until very recently, marriage meant that a woman was considered her husband's property, and it was restricted to couples of the same race. History has shown us that both of those situations are morally reprehensible.
The fact that something has been a certain way for a long time doesn't make it morally or ethically correct.
Amen.
In the U.S. marriage has NOT meant the woman is the husbands "property". She has been free to leave and file for divorce.
I don't know of any "property" that could decide for itself it could leave its owner and free itself. Slaves never had that right.
Actually, our great country allowed marriage of much younger than 14 in our not so distant past. Marriage has a long history of polygamy etc. To say it has been between one man and one woman, both of acceptable ages, is just plain ignorant.
I.ncest is against the law, and irrelevant to this discussion. The reason your side is going to lose is the same reason virginia lost in the loving decision. TWO unrelated, adult, consenting same gender people have just as much righ to married to each other, as anyone else.
Your premise that there is ONE definition of marriage for ALL civilizations doesn't even hold up in today's society. saudi, africa, asia... Historically, concubines, inherited, plurality...you get the picture.
In any case your argument is inconsequential. There is NO definition of marriage in the united states constitution. The right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The end to "Seperate but equal". Equal protection under the law will reign supreme throughout the land. You're welcome, have a nice day.
Same sex marriage is against the law in most states.
Interracial marriage was allowed in Virginia before the Loving ruling for everyone EXCEPT whites. Marriage had two DIFFERENT definitions depending on if you were white or not.
Unlike the law overturned by Loving DOMA has ONE marriage definition for all. Everyone is treated equally. Any unmarried man may marry an unmarried woman. No man may marry a man. No woman may marry a woman. Equal Protection!!!
You are correct that the Constitution does not define marriage, but it does give congress the power to write laws. Congress wrote the DOMA law and Federal courts have UPHELD it.
You're welcome, have a nice day.
You clain a right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That phrase NEVER appears in the constitution and is NOT a constitutional right.
1. Most states do not allow minors to marry without parental consent, so that argument is ridiculous.
2. Please explain why failing to have a clear definition of marriage will cause us to have trouble functioning as a society.
3. Read some world history. Your "one man-one woman" definition of marriage has not been used by all civilizations since time immemorial. Far from it, even today.
It is customary for politicians, when they seriously consider the ins and outs of the various issues of our day, and come down on one side or the other, they wonder whether or not they will be on the righteous side of history. Concerning American civil rights, clearly those who were pro-slavery, pro-segregation, and anti-voting rights for women and Black people were on the wrong side of history.
Insofar as the civil rights of homosexual Americans are left unequal to those of any and all other Americans, the Obama Administration is falling to that wrong side of history. I think President Obama realizes this, ultimately, and will move to make righteous decisions regarding the rights of LGBT Americans, as well as on the other major questions concerning our nation. As our first Black president we can only hope, for the sake of his legacy and America's posterity, that he always recognizes what is fundamentally righteous from what is not, and that ultimately he stays on the righteous side of history.
Make no mistake. What the people against gay marriage are saying is that gays should not be treated as human beings. They are saying it's in the best interest of society that gays in a loving couple not be happy or secure. They are saying that stability for gay relationships is bad for America. They want the children of gay couples to have fewer rights than children of straights and gays to have a less full, less complete life. There s no real secular argument to deny gay relationships equality to straight ones that holds up to logic. The only explanation is downright dislike of gay people and any chance for them to be whole human beings on par with heterosexual human beings.
You speak the absolute and whole truth. Here's the question: how do we get people past their bias?
Education is the answer. The fear exhibited by those against gay marriage is simply a symptom of ignorance.
Great post, oafishcad.
As a Canadian where my country has had marriage equality for five years now, I don't understand the LAG on civil rights in your country.
It is disheartening and the amount of religion injected into a civil rights issue is astonishing.
Absolutely. And this is not -- as same-sex marriage opponents so disingenuously state -- about the word "marriage". There are people who simply do not want us to be happy in our relationships, and to that end, they will stop at nothing.
Yes, just look at the history of states that passed civil unions or domestic partnership laws in the 20th century. Hawaii, Vermont, etc. Opposition was fierce from religious conservatives.
I agree. Gay people are human beings, They are born to regular folks just like any other child. How can we continue to discriminate against human beings - just as we did to black americans and still do.
It's nuts. It's absolute insane.
Isn't religion a choice? But wait a minute, it is protected and you cannot discriminate based on religion. You can't have it both ways. Equal is equal, not almost equal or sort of equal.
Religion is a choice and marital status are both choices--and both are protected.
One shouldn't have to prove that something is or isn't a choice in order to have equal rights.
Turn that argument on its head: If I people cho0se to engage in same sex relations, they should never receive equal treatment? Why?
At the core of those questions, is the underlying assumption that there must be something inherently wrong with same sex relations. The only way (even this writer says it) that some can fathom equal treatment is if the *condition* of homosexuality isn't a choice? WHY enter into this argument? There should be no debate on it. You either have equality for tax paying citizens or not.
I've been using this counter-argument for years to combat the "being gay is a choice" argument. It's amazing how they fall silent when I put the question to them that choice or not, we protect both categories -- so WHY should this be different again?
It's usually silent and then the taking points are rehashed.
Again.
Excellent comment.
Thanks, Isis! :)
Not recognizing same-sex marriages is discriminating against those churches that do marry same-sex couples (eg Unitarians).
You are so right. This country seems to forget that there is more that 1 religion. This is NOT a Christian nation.
Or would that be establishing the Unitarian religion?
The Webster Merrium Dictionary defines marriage as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law".
Last time I checked the dictionary was not considered a religious book.
How does making laws that match the dictionary establish religion? IT DOES NOT!!!
Under DOMA any unmarried man may marry any unmarried woman.
No man may marry a man.
No woman may marry a woman.
That is the same for everyone. Not almost the same or sort of the same.
You're simply parroting the same bigoted ideas that racists used to defend anti-miscegenation laws back in the 1800s.
You need to get some new material.
What is this "Webster Merrium" dictionary of which you speak?
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines bigot as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance."
There is no argument against gay marriage that is not rooted in religious nonsense. I was sensibly raised with "funny uncles" (a euphamism from the 60's) and all I saw was love and devotion. Gays marrying does not affect me or my marriage adversly in any way. They should enjoy all of the protections (inheritance, insurance etc) as any comitted couple.
If the American Christian Taliban really believe in their imaginary friend in the sky, they will let Him sort it out in the afterlife. But they better start paying attention and follow ALL of the "teaching" in their book or they will burn right along with the gays they hate.
I think every state in the union will allow gay marriage before New Mexico will. The state is ruled by some guy in a dress sitting on a throne in Rome. We actually almost had gay marriage this year--until the Catholic Church marched in and shut it down at the last minute.
"The state is ruled by some guy in a dress sitting on a throne in Rome." LOL!
Really? So you are required to send your state income tax to Rome?
"a safe town and an affordable home to live in; a good job to provide us and our families with economic security; good schools for our children; quality health care; and, perhaps most importantly, someone to love and share our lives with."
At last, someone has truthfully and intelligently articulated the Gay Agenda, the phony version of which so many right-wingers have used as a bogeyman to make people afraid of homosexuals. (Oddly enough, it sounds exactly like the Straight Agenda.)
Thank you, Lincoln Chafee!
Spot on. I'm a gay man who has always wondered what makes my "lifestyle" and "agenda" so different from the rest of society that it needs its own special identifier.
Sounds to me like the Humane Agenda.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
