Even Same-Sex Marriage Is a Basic Civil Right

In contrast to some prominent Christian Evangelists, Pastor Rick Warren, who has been invited to deliver the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration, does not wish gays and lesbians ill. He takes justifiable pride in his church's record of caring for AIDS victims. At the same time, he actively opposes equal rights and equal treatment for gays and lesbians, which is not at all the same as not supporting such rights. He was a strong and vocal force behind the adoption of California's Proposition 8 which deprived same-sex couples of the right to marry. Pastor Warren maintains that "This is not a political issue -- it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about."

I do not have a problem with Orthodox rabbis, the Vatican, the Mormon Church, or Pastor Warren's Saddleback Church for refusing to perform or recognize same-sex marriages. I do, however, find offensive and objectionable their efforts to impose their religious and moral views on the rest of society.

Many right-wing religious fundamentalists of all faiths as well as conservative Republican politicians and commentators decry courts that have sought to legalize same-sex marriage as a matter of law. Kenneth Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor who has been retained to invalidate the more than 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in California before the passage of Proposition 8, argues that judges "as servants of the people" should "bow to the will of those whom they serve."

But aren't gays and lesbians among those whom such judges and, for that matter, our legislators serve? And while we're on the subject, what about interracial couples in pre-1967 Virginia, or Jews married to Christians in Nazi Germany? Republicans who tolerate their party's platform calling for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages should be reminded of a similar constitutional amendment to prohibit interracial marriages proposed by Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry, Democrat of Georgia, in 1912 on the ground that "intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant." We must also bear in mind that the invidious 1935 Nuremberg Laws criminalized both marriages and extramarital intercourse "between Jews and subjects of the state of German or related blood."

We forget that as recently as 1958, an African-American woman and a white man were prosecuted in Virginia for the crime of getting married to each other. "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red," wrote County Circuit Court Judge Leon M. Bazile of Caroline County, Virginia, in his January 6, 1959 ruling sentencing Mildred and Richard Loving to one year in jail (suspended on condition that they leave the State for 25 years). "And," he continued, "he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." Like Pastor Warren almost 50 years later, Judge Bazile had no doubt that this was a moral issue that God had spoken out on.

It was not until June 12, 1967, that the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Lovings' criminal conviction and declared Virginia's prohibition of interracial marriage to be unconstitutional. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in Loving v. Virginia that:

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies [Virginia's prohibition of interracial marriage]. . . . Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. . . . The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Does anyone doubt that a majority of the good people of Virginia might well have voted to retain the ban on interracial marriage in 1967? Or that a majority of Germans would have endorsed the Nuremberg racial laws in 1935? Should the Supreme Court in Loving have deferred to prejudices that, in retrospect, might make even Kenneth Starr cringe?

We must never lose sight of the fact that divisive rhetoric and demagoguery have consequences. The delegitimization or demonization of any group threatens our society as a whole. Any muddying of the separation of church and state encroaches on the religious liberty now enjoyed by all Americans. Unlike most European countries, the United States has never had an established church or religion, and most Americans like it that way just fine.

Generations of immigrants, my parents and I among them, came to these shores "yearning to breathe free," and the Emma Lazarus' poem engraved on the Statue of Liberty does not bestow this privilege exclusively on those of "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" who happen to be heterosexual.

Menachem Rosensaft, a lawyer in New York City, is the Founding Chairman of the International Network of Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors

This article was first published in the New York Jewish Week.

Comments

[Nikola Tesla]

"Homophobic? Then You're Probably Gay"

Johann Hari
Columnist, London Independent
Posted January 16, 2009 | 12:33 PM (EST)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/homophobic-then-youre-pro_b_158516.html

[hthalljr]

Rosensaft [finds] “offensive and objectionable [the efforts by religious leaders] to impose their religious and moral views on the rest of society.”

Thereby he seeks to divert attention from the truth that homosexuals are doing exactly that, seeking to impose, by law, their irreligious and immoral views on the rest of society.

Homosexuals demand a “civil right” for their freely-chosen behavior, thereby commandeering the power of the state to force legal and social sanction thereof. The weapon of mass deception that they deploy is the outrageous invention of “same-sex marriage.”

To insinuate their cause into case law, they attempt to define themselves as a “suspect class” deserving of special protection – a status already obtained by judicial fiat in California. Such a “suspect class” for homosexuals is nonsense! This is not a "class" of people who cannot change their behavior. Rather, it is a "club" of hedonists who choose to act out their basest desires.

“Homosexual” is no more a “suspect class” than is “alcoholic­.” Regardless of whether either proclivity is genetic or social in origin, both addictions begin with a freely chosen act, followed by another, then another . . . .

Those who demand that the time-honored definition of marriage be changed to sanction their behavior are not only seeking to ban religion from the public square: they are also seeking to ban all ethical considerations. Only one “sin” will remain in their unholy writ: that of “homophobi­a.”

Tracy Hall Jr
hthalljr'gmail'com

[Nikola Tesla]

In the totality of Human history, polygamy has been the norm.

If you think that being gay is a choice you are, by definition, bi-sexual.

[bannorhill]

Wrong. Polygamy has NEVER been the norm.

Even in Mormon Utah in the 1870's less than 5% of the men practiced polygamy.

[mercury613]

nope. Wrong. Same-sex marriage imposes nothing on anyone. The only people it affects are gay people. Yours is an argument that many religious people try to use, but it doesn't work. You have no right to impose your religious beliefs on me or anyone else. Period.

Nice try.

[bannorhill]

53% of California voters and 63% of Florida voters seem to believe the arguments for defining marriage as between "a man and a woman" worked.

As for imposing religious beliefs we have the right to impose religous ideas. Otherwise there would not be laws based on "Thou shall not Murder" and " Thou shall not steal"!!

[LeftRight]

You honestly think that allowing gay marriage will affect you in ANY way, shape, or form???? The fact of the matter is that if two gay people get married it will have ZERO effect on you, but if you prevent them from getting married it will have a MAJOR effect on them!!

[bannorhill]

I believe that allowing laws to be changed at the whim of a vocal minority and not through the normal legislative or ammendment process will have a GREAT effect on me.

In the US laws are not made by whoever yells the loudest.

We are a country where the merits of both sides of an issue are debated and laws are made based on those arguments. Defining marriage is no different.

[Tanyars5]

AbbieX- I read your comments below. Thanks for responding seriously to my post. The responses you received show how complex this issue will be in the future. I find that due to the complexity of the law, the current 30 state ban on gay marriage, and the current makeup of the supreme court that gay marriage is not going to be happening any time soon. The arguement against gay marriage has been framed by its supporters in such a way that people will always vote against it. I think most politicians in states that the ban has been passed will stay away from that issue. Ohio passed the ban 4 years ago. I don't hear a word from anyone trying to reverse the ban.
carntrucks and others makes a great case why gay marriage is not a civil right. I will admit I am not a lawyer and don't know the ins and outs of civil right etc. I am just not buying the arguement.
I don't think it has been proven that people are born gay. I do agree with your statement.

[mercury613]

Fortunately, time is not on your side.

In 2000, prop 22 won with 62% of the vote. Just 8 years later, that percentage was reduced by 10 points to 52% with prop 8. (And only then because the LDS and Catholic churches sponsored a $35 million campaign of lies. Prior to their intervention, prop 8 trailed by 17 points.)

Statistical research has shown that 55% of people 18-29 voted against Prop 8; that's 55% of people across ALL ethnic, economic, religious and political lines in that age group. The 65+ age group voted 67% in favor of Prop 8. As older voters die off and are replaced by younger voters, things will change, just like they did with interracial marriage.

Times are changing. Same sex marriage will be a reality sooner than you think, at least in California.

[Tanyars5]

I am speaking country wide.

[Nikola Tesla]

If you think that being gay is a choice you are, by definition, bi-sexual.

[Tanyars5]

I do think people are born gay. My point is that I don't think it has been medically proven. What I think means nothing in a court of law.

[Nikola Tesla]

This is the case before the CS Supreme Court:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm

[tr24]

For all the people who believe race and sexual preference­/orientati­on are in anyway similar, here is what the SCOTUS thinks:

The Supreme Court has recognized that race, national origin, religion, and alienage are suspect classes, and therefore any laws discriminating against these classes are analyzed under strict scrutiny. Quasi-suspect class, with its intermediate scrutiny, is typically reserved for government sponsored discrimination on the basis of sex or legitimacy. Rational basis scrutiny covers all other discriminatory criteria, i.e. disability, political preference, political affiliation, or sexual orientation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification

Sexual orientation is in the same classification as disabilities, political affiliation, etc.

[AbbieXHoffman]

There is nothing the same between race and sexual ORIENTATION except that both are groups that have been denied civil rights.

In some jurisdictions sexual ORIENTATION is considere a protected class though.

Thankfull this country does not sit just accept that the law and legislation of the past and current day is the law of the future. If we thought that way, slavery would still be legal.

sexual ORIENTATION will be a protected class on the federal level some day soon.

Are you going to be okay when that happens?

[tr24]

I wouldn't bet on it. As it stands now sexual preference is no more protected than for the right to be a democrat or republican. Obama doesn't want to lose in 2012, because of this. He'll make the right decisions and Supreme Court picks.

[SD Indy]

You really need HELP! Psychiatric help that is. For someone who hates gay people as much as you do, you seem to ONLY hang out on threads dealing with gay rights. Wonder why that is. Never mind, WE ALL know why that is. It is to feed your own superiority complex along with pie's superiority complex.

[Nikola Tesla]

Or a total closet case.

[bannorhill]

TR24 needs help? You (SD Indy) disagree with the Supreme Court and claim any other view requires Psychiatric help. Sounds like you have delusions of grandeur. Who really needs the padded cell?

[Nikola Tesla]

SCOTUS has NO jurisdiction in this California State Constitutional Fight. Dream on.

[tr24]

DOMA

Title 1 Chapter 1 Section 7

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

[AbbieXHoffman]

Someone thinks they are smart, but BO and the rest of civil rights activists are smarter.

DOMA is unconsitutional and will be repealed by BO.

But LaBolt noted that the Illinois senator opposed a proposed federal ban on gay marriage. Campaigning in Pennsylvania in April, Obama said he would oppose a similar constitutional ban under consideration by the Legislature there.

"Senator Obama opposes all divisive and discriminatory constitutional amendments such as the one in California," LaBolt said.

Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families – which backs the California ballot measure – called Obama a hypocrite.

"He says he believes marriage is for a man and woman, yet he's promising he would undo federal marriage protection and oppose California marriage," Thomasson said.

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html

[tr24]

Let's stick to the facts ma'am...

"the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife..."

[CornetMustich]

"I do not have a problem with Orthodox rabbis, the Vatican, the Mormon Church, or Pastor Warren's Saddleback Church for refusing to perform or recognize same-sex marriages. I do, however, find offensive and objectionable their efforts to impose their religious and moral views on the rest of society."

Thank you! Bravo!

And kudos to CT and MA.

Cheers, Joe Mustich, Justices of the Peace, Washington CT USA
http://justicesofthepeace.blogspot.com

[Palemoon]

The Constitution specifically states that nothing can be used as a way to deny or disparage the rights of a minority of the people, regardless of what that minority is based on. As such, bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional and patently illegal.

[SD Indy]

I would like to ask a question of Tanya, iwantpie, and tr24 since you seem to be the resident big.ots on the topic of same-sex marriage. How are YOU affected if a same-sex couple gets married in the eyes of the law? Check YOUR religious beliefs at the door because they have ZERO influence on the rule of law.

[SD Indy]

Perhaps I was a little harsh in addressing this to Tanya, but the other two stand.

[Balancement]

They have no answer except that they don't like GLBT people--but they'd never have the courage to say it to our faces.

[eden4barack08]

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. . . . The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. "

It is clear that by the words "existence and survival", the reference is to love and procreation. Religious people don't see gay marriage as a matter of "existence or survival", that's why they don't think they're infringing on anybody's rights, as opposed to the racial issue. So the goal should be to change the hearts and minds of those willing, but who fail to see gay marriage as a civil rights issue, and eventually be able to add the words "...freedo­m of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial OR SEXUAL discriminations". It took hundreds of years and millions of opinions persuaded to finally see blacks as human beings to achieve the racial equality.
It's not going to happen overnight by just demanding it for the LGBT either.

[suejester]

There are two types of marriage

Civil Marriage = Rights, laws and protections given by the government - this is what homosexuals are fighting for and are rightfully entitled to as US citizens based on the 14th admendment. This is not a religous based marriage. This is where there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.

Religious marriage = ceremony blessed by a religious organization - this is not what homosexuals are fighting for. Churches can marry who they want based on their 1st admendement right

[JohnJames]

Yep. And gay couples can already marry in quite a few churches and synagogues. This isn't about that and never has been, despite those who scare people with the lie that religious freedom is endangered. It's about being treated as equal citizens under the law by our secular American government.

[carsntrucks]

I'm curious, JohnJames: how much time and energy do you see yourself putting into protecting religious freedoms should they come under attack by the gay community, or any other group, for that matter? Just a ballpark figure. Because my guess is you think it's ridiculous because it's not a fight you'd ever involve yourself with, so people must be exaggerating for no reason.

It's not like the religious community can rely on the gay community for support should this happen, so I'd give them a pass. All they're doing is watching their own backs.

[Tanyars5]

This is what I cannot understand :
How did gay marriage become such a big issue? It is banned in 30 some states. How is it that the gay agenda is driving so much of the media attention?

[JohnJames]

We all gather together in an undisclosed location and vibrate. It works.

[LanceJetson]

If your question is serious: it's a matter of HUMAN rights and equality under the law. It is BECAUSE states are banning it that it has become such an issue. They are denying truly commited couples and families with children the same legal rights as other couples because of their genders and obtruding religious ideas into the civil arena (re-read the article). It is because America was structured to protect minorities, and was based on the rule of [secular] LAW. It is because there are tens of thousands of committed couples who have to jump through [expensive] legal hoops to acquire rights and privileges that "legally married" couples take for granted -- like hospital visitation, legal guardianship for children, inheritence and property issues, even divorce protections, etc.. It's because gay people have been persecuted, beaten and killed for speaking out. ETC. There's a few reasons for you.

[Tanyars5]

My question is serious. I have mixed feelings on this subject. I do agree that gay people who are in truly "committed relationships" should have legal rights as you have described above. I do think it is a matter of "human rights." I am not so sure it is a "civil right" and you have not advocated it in your comment. I do think there is a distinction between a person who is a racial minority and one who is a minority due to sexual oreintation. I still don't think that the media attention given to this topic is warranted. I think there are other issues that are more important due to the fact it is almost a dead issue. Once the ban on gay marriage is ratified in a couple more states the issue will be closed.

[oafishcad]

Dang. Where do I get a copy of the agenda. I'm so out of the loop. I can't even find my copy of the straight agenda.

[LiberalChrisFromEurope]

Because they know that in the end it will be overturned altogether.

[Nikola Tesla]

"What are all those Civil Rights Marchers doin' on TV! I'm missing "I Love Lucy!"!"

Confused 1960's Television Viewer

[carsntrucks]

I'm sure that would be funny if it made any sense.

[drock973]

I Love Lucy ended in 1957.

[iwantpie]

Same-sex marriages is like putting lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.

[SD Indy]

And so are you.

[Tanyars5]

Pie you don't play do you....how u doing?

[LewDan]

You really shouldn't call heterosexual marriages "a pig."

[JohnJames]

Too funny.

[smithshaw08]

There are people in the wedding industry who actually welcome additional income generated by gay marriage. By denying gay marriage you also take away from businesses who are not bias. Gay couples tend to seek out those who are accepting to give their business to. We don't need to waste time on the bakery that refuses to put two grooms on a cake. Others in the industry are open minded. There is a welcoming church in almost every city if we want that theater.

[messy]

So is polygamy, polyandry, and incest when practiced by adults.

[oafishcad]

If gay marriage is the equivalent of those things, so is heterosexual marriage.

[LeftRight]

WRONG! The reason that those are not civil rights concerns is because the govt denies EVERYONE, straight or gay, the "right" to have a polygamous or incestuous relationship. And as far as polyandry, that doesn't involve the law, since it doesn't involve the contract that polygamy does.