freedom to marry

With Valentine's Day falling mid-week and spring just around the corner (at least here in parts South!), love is in the air.  It seems then, that there is no better time to talk -- again -- about gay marriage.

I fully support gay marriage, with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that it currently holds for heterosexual couples.  Quite frankly, I'm fed up with all the hate and hoopla.  Cries that it will "ruin the institution of marriage" or "legitimize sinful relationships" only point out one of the central issues at the core of this debate: separating the view of marriage as a religious institution from its role as a legal contract between two people.

Truth is, marriage isn't just about love.  (Shhh, don't tell my husband.)  Yes, I think love and romance and all of that can be elements of a marriage, but they aren't necessary or sufficient to call a relationship a marriage.  We all know married people who no longer love one another, and we all know people who love one another without being married (and sometimes, in addition to the people they are married to). 

Nor is marriage necessarily about religion.  Right now, any heterosexual couple in the United States can choose to have a civil ceremony performed by a justice of the peace or similar officiant.  These ceremonies don't have a religious sanction, and they may or may not include any religious text.  While many couples in the United States choose a religious wedding, it is by no means required.  Religious and civil ceremonies are recognized equally under the law.

So let's, for a minute, take love and religion out of marriage: what do we have left?  We're left with a social and legal institution that binds two people together with a specific set of rights and obligations.  The marriage contract, in one single act, clarifies the rights of partners to health and insurance benefits, to medical decision-making, and to custodial rights of any children that come into the family (whether by birth or adoption).  The same contract obligates partners to each other's financial decisions and debts and changes their taxation status.

While there are certainly some legal means for homosexual couples to secure these same rights -- by specifying beneficiaries in an insurance policy, for example -- not all are necessarily extended.  Many companies do not recognize same-sex domestic partnerships for medical benefits.  Children adopted or born into a gay partnership legally "belong to" only one of the parents.  Gay couples file taxes as "single" regardless of the length and commitment of their partnership.

These relationships deserve recognition.  Here we have two men or two women willing to say, "I'm in this for the long haul," willing to provide one another with stability and nurturing (which one author astutely offers as the true purpose of marriage), and we're saying "No!"  WHY?

There is a growing body of good scientific evidence that homosexuality is based in biology, not a choice.  There are years of experience from other countries, where gay marriage has been legal for almost two decades, that the legalization of same-sex commitment does not lead quickly down a "slippery slope" toward polygamy, bestiality and incest.  And the American Academy of Pediatrics -- not exactly a stronghold of liberal policy -- has an official policy statement on co-parenting by same-sex couples, citing solid research that children with gay or lesbian parents fare just as well as their peers on measures of "self-esteem, depression, anxiety, school 'connectedness,' and school success."

These couples deserve support and recognition.  These parents and children deserve the support of a social and legal structure that fully recognizes their family ties.  It's time to stop hiding homophobia and hatred behind scripture and start accepting same-sex relationships as legitimate, legal, nurturing partnerships.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Thanks to reader Kelly for bringing Freedom to Marry Week to my attention.  For a round-up of others writing online about these issues, head over to Mombian.

Comments

[heather]

This is a great post and I agree with it all the way. I thought it was funny that I read somewhere that a gay rights group was trying to pass a law to make a point. In order to fight all of the conservatives who say that marriage is about procreation, they were trying to pass a law saying that anyone who does not produce children after three years would have to have a divorce. Ha!

[Sonia]

Here's the argument I used with a loved one about fifteen years ago when homosexuality was not even close to as mainstream and accepted as it is now.

OK, so think about it like this. Somebody says to themselves one day, "Gee, I think I'll be gay now. Because getting beat up and possibly killed for being 'different' sounds SUPER fun!" *please note sarcasm

**This discussion took place before Matthew Shepard was murdered, and violence against gays was national news**

I was just making a point to somebody who was all "why do THEY want to be like that?" and I said, "don't you think, because of the pressure and judgement and hate, if a person could choose not to be, they would? It's not a choice, people are born gay...PERIOD.

I was raised to believe that gay people were wrong and immoral. In a close-minded small town, that was a pretty normal viewpoint.

I support gay marriage and all the rights that go along with, including the ability to adopt. If the circumstances dictated as such, I would prefer a loving homosexual couple take my four kids if something happened to me rather than some members of my own family! The ability to love a child doesn't correlate to your sexual preference, just my opinion.

Great post, Nicole. But then, that's easy for me to say, I agree with your arguments!

[jaxter]

Great post, thanks! The group mentioned by Heather is in the state of Washington...and the bill made it to the ballot - I think. And really the only reason for a woman to "go gay" is to get that toaster oven Ellen Degeneres has spoken about from time to time - well that and being abused verbally -read heavy sarcasm here. Growing up in an incredibly conservative New England town scared the daylights out of me, which I have since recovered from - but still, it is always good to know there are sane supportive people out there - thank you.

[Alex]

I just came across this post as I was looking through this site for the first time. I was quite excited to find your post. I actually have a post up on my blog as part of Freedom to Marry week.

I absolutely support gay marriage. In our country there is a separation of church and state. The only arguments against gay marriage seem to be religious ones. Furthermore, some religions like mine (I'm a UU)believe in gay marriage. In this country we do not allow one religious group to dictate that a marriage is not legitimate based on that other group's religious beliefs. For example my husband and I are from two different religious backgrounds. We have members of both of our families that do not consider us to have a real wedding since it wasn't in either of our religions. Does that mean our marriage can be annulled? Absouletly not. They have the right to be upset by it and we still have the right to be married.

Furthermore, to say that gay marriage should not be legal is really a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the constitution. Basically one is saying that Suzy Smith cannot marry Jane Doe because Suzy is a woman (or Jane cannot marry Suzy because Jane is a woman). That sounds like gender discrimination to me.

Gay marriage is legal in MA. We have the lowest divorce rate in the country. I have never understand how gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage. I also don't understand how preventing gay marriage helps kids. What about the kids of people who are gay? Why shouldn't their parents have equal rights. What are peole so afraid of?

Civil unions also upset me. They are not the same as marriage. Separate but equal has never been a good thing.

[Alex]

I just came across this post as I was looking through this site for the first time. I was quite excited to find your post. I actually have a post up on my blog as part of Freedom to Marry week.

I absolutely support gay marriage. In our country there is a separation of church and state. The only arguments against gay marriage seem to be religious ones. Furthermore, some religions like mine (I'm a UU)believe in gay marriage. In this country we do not allow one religious group to dictate that a marriage is not legitimate based on that other group's religious beliefs. For example my husband and I are from two different religious backgrounds. We have members of both of our families that do not consider us to have a real wedding since it wasn't in either of our religions. Does that mean our marriage can be annulled? Absouletly not. They have the right to be upset by it and we still have the right to be married.

Furthermore, to say that gay marriage should not be legal is really a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the constitution. Basically one is saying that Suzy Smith cannot marry Jane Doe because Suzy is a woman (or Jane cannot marry Suzy because Jane is a woman). That sounds like gender discrimination to me.

Gay marriage is legal in MA. We have the lowest divorce rate in the country. I have never understand how gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage. I also don't understand how preventing gay marriage helps kids. What about the kids of people who are gay? Why shouldn't their parents have equal rights. What are peole so afraid of?

Civil unions also upset me. They are not the same as marriage. Separate but equal has never been a good thing.

[On Lawn]

> "Truth is, marriage isn't just about love."

While put a bit hastily, I believe I agree with the underlying point. It is actually refreshing to see someone else say it for once, though I do not see you getting the same flak I have for making such a statement -- which is a good thing :)

> "Nor is marriage necessarily about religion."

I agree also, for roughly the same reasons.

> "We're left with a social and legal institution that binds two people together with a specific set of rights and obligations."

Well, here I can agree except that I find that as you put it, the description falls a bit short. Its a fair categorization of what marriage is, as there are many "social and legal institutions [that] binds two people together with a specific set of rights and obligations".

To help me understand better what you are saying marriage is, could you answer the following questions?

You ask the following question, "Here we have two men or two women willing to say, 'I'm in this for the long haul,' willing to provide one another with stability and nurturing (which one author astutely offers as the true purpose of marriage), and we're saying 'No!' WHY?"

And I wonder how you would answer it for yourself. I remember reading about a lawsuit filed in England where a mother and daughter were in it for the long haul, as it were, to help each other with stability and nurturing while they raised the daughter's children. Would you say "No" to offering them the same status and protections as, say, a lesbian couple?

If "NO" then, why?

[Stephanie]

I am a married woman to my best friend of many years. I am completely for homosexual marriage. I agree with pretty much everything you have said. While I think marriage is a wonderful institution, I think it is something that society makes you do when you are a man and a woman who want to have sex and live together. Why is it that when the situation is changed a bit and a man and a man want to have sex and live together people don't want them to get married? It isn't okay with a large part of society then.

Just because my husband and I have a peice of paper and paid way too much for a nice wedding does not mean that we are any more committed to being together the rest of our lives than someone who does not have these privledges. It still appalls me that some people are so afraid of what isn't the social norm that they want all to be like themselves. Just because you are afraid of something doesn't mean it isn't right.

A friend once made a great point when we were discussing this before. If someone can decide that two men or two women can't get married then what is to say that those people won't decide that two people of a different race or two people with a disability should not be able to marry.

[On Lawn]

> "I agree with pretty much everything you have said. ... I think it is something that society makes you do when you are a man and a woman who want to have sex and live together"

Why would anyone do that?

> "If someone can decide that two men or two women can't get married then what is to say that those people won't decide that two people of a different race or two people with a disability should not be able to marry."

.. or say that two people who are related cannot marry, or two people with one or both underage cannot marry...

Its arguments like that which lend people to conclude there is a slippery slope, something the author of this article seems to deny.

I'm just saying.

[krystyn]

One night when my 11 year old couldn't sleep, he wandered into my bedroom where I was watching television. This was just after some states had made gay marriage legal, I was watching footage of Bush preaching that it was wrong.

I considered turning it off, but he seemed genuinely interested, and asked what was going on. I explained that some states had made it legal for gay couples to marry, and Bush wanted to make it a Federal Law that they couldn't.

"Why does he want to stop gay people from getting married?" he asked.

"Because he knows there are a lot of conservative voters who will vote for him if he puts a stop to it."

Puzzled look.

"Remember the report you did on Harriet Tubman, and how when she was little, hateful people tried to keep black people from having the same rights as everyone else?"

"Yes."

"This is similar to that."

"So like, if you wanted to marry a woman, they don't want you to?"

"Correct."

"Why do they care what you do?"

"I don't know."

"Well, that's stupid."

"Right you are, kid. Right you are."

[krystyn]

In reply to On Lawn's post:

"Its arguments like that which lend people to conclude there is a slippery slope..."

I completely agree. People who oppose gay marriage use the same argument (next thing ya know people will be marrying animals!) I think it's important to stick to the topic at hand -- we're discussing two gay individuals marrying one another -- not beastiality or people with handicaps or mixed race couples.

[On Lawn]

I'm not sure such a view fits, I hope you can take better advantage of the opportunity in the future. All of the major presidential candidates (so far) believe in equal gender representation in marriage. And John Kerry and George Bush as well in 2004.

They might all be considered pandering for the vote, but that is just tip-toeing up to the real issue, people in general see value in equal gender representation in marriage.

Also, I take offense that you would ascribe a problem I point out in someone else's argument as my own. That was entirely dishonest, and if I may say, childish.