Tag Archives: marriage equality

Why is Marriage so Important, Anyway?

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, I commented to a friend that I had sent out another letter, this time to Bill Frist because of the interview he gave on NPR. He asked me why it was so important. For a moment, I wasn’t sure what to say. It was so obvious to me why it was important that I wasn’t quite sure how to answer. Fortunately I recovered quickly and started listing some reasons, but it was haphazard since I didn’t really have my thoughts organized.

I thought that if one person might ask – and an exceedingly sane person at that – then others might not understand why this issue is so important. Of course only about six people read my blog either on my website or on livejournal, and most of those already understand the issues, but perhaps someone else will stumble upon this and maybe it will help. If nothing else it will satisfy this urge to write that I’ve been dealing with lately.

So, why is the right to marry so important?

I’ll get to my own arguments in a moment, but I’d start with this document from HRC on Answers to Questions About Marriage Equality. It covers a lot of it and better than I can. Read it. Send it to friends. Educate the world.

But, I need to put something in my own words and not rely on the words of others. I’ve spent of time writing letters saying why we shouldn’t ban
same-sex marriage, but what’s the argument on the flip side? Why should we allow same-sex marriage?

Love seems to be a good reason. After all, that’s usually the reason why two people get married. If you meet someone and fall in love and want to spend the rest of your life with that person, does it truly matter if that person is male or female? Some would say so, but they are acting solely from fear and hate. I’ve met couples that have been together for years and their marriages are indistinguishable in the love and sharing and caring from
any heterosexual marriage. That kind of love can’t be wrong.

However, strangely enough, the state doesn’t care about love. Two people can love each other and never marry regardless of their sexual orientation.
And, from the state’s perspective, love isn’t a prerequisite for marriage. All you need is a blood test, a birth certificate, and a fee. And, for now, to have two individuals of the opposite sex. So, if love won’t carry the day, then what other reasons are there?

How about protecting our families?

When a couple marries, they are bound together in more than just bond of love. They are bound together legally. Those legal bonds give each
certain rights that they would not otherwise have. The right to make medical decisions for a spouse. The right to inherit property. The right to be covered on a spouse’s medical insurance. There are so many of these rights that I couldn’t begin to list them all. Without the right to marry, only a small subset of them can be created. With the right to marry, they come along as intrinsic to the package.

Couples need to know that their relationship is protected in any state in the Union. Even if you happen to live in a state where civil unions are
permitted, that civil union may not grant you any legal standing outside of that state and it definitely carries no weight with the federal government.

If a same-sex couple does have children, what kind of message are we sending them when they learn that their parents are not permitted to marry? Aren’t we implicitly saying that they aren’t a family? Studies have shown that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are normal, happy children if they come from a loving family. This is exactly the same as with a heterosexual couple. These are families and they should be treated as such.

Those who say gays and lesbians shouldn’t be permitted to marry because of family values have got it completely wrong. It is precisely because of family values that marriage should be permitted. I f we didn’t care about family then why else would we bother?

Ultimately it’s about acceptance by society. If the right to marry is granted then this is a huge step toward equality. If marriage is permitted then states that prohibit adoption would no longer have any right to balk. Businesses would have no question about whether to grant benefits. Schools would have no doubt about who the parents were. Hospitals would not question who the spouse was.

The fact is that while sexuality is a continuum, most people tend toward one end of the spectrum. Most of the remainder tend toward the other with a small group spread out everywhere in between. There is no medical os psychological reason to say that there is anything wrong with any of them. The fact that it has survived in our genome for so long might argue that it has some value to the species. I don’t have any evidence to support that, but it is a possibility.

So, if there’s nothing wrong with gays and lesbians then why shouldn’t we be able to live our lives openly and with full recognition of our relationships? There are only two logical conclusions that I can come to. Either the state must recognize same-sex marriage or the state must get out of the marriage business altogether. It shouldn’t get to pick and choose who gets to marry.

A small but vocal minority has tried to create fear and hate. Another small but becoming more vocal group has tried to live and love. Tell me which of those sounds like good moral values to you.

Share

Frist on NPR

Posted on by
Reply

I generally am awakened on weekday mornings by the news on NPR. This morning I heard an interview with Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader. By the time the interview was done, I knew that I had to write another letter. I hope others will let Mr. Frist know that his promotion of discrimination is a Bad Thing.

It is mostly a subset of the earlier letters so if you’ve read them then you’ve got the gist of what I said, but I figured I’d go ahead and post it (and any subsequent response).

Mr. Frist,

I heard Juan Williams’ interview you on NPR this morning (November 16, 2004) and when he asked you about the “gay marriage ban” you responded ”I suspect we will act to protect marriage as the union between a man and a woman especially if there are activist judges who further challenge it.”

I would like you to consider the meaning behind your words because I believe that you are missing the point of why millions of Americans want the right to marry.

Which is more important? The perceived definition of a word or the rights and families of millions of Americans?

The reason that many gay Americans have resorted to the court system is to gain recognition for a right that is being denied them by the legislatures of many states as well as the federal government. Because of these laws millions of couples are unable to protect their families. When a legislature turns a deaf ear to their pleas what recourse is there other than the legal system? Had the legislature acted to protect them rather than to exclude them then it would not have been necessary to pursue recognition of equal rights in the courts.

Laws such as the so-called Defense of Marriage Act protect nothing. Instead they codify discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans into our laws. The only possible justification for wanting a Constitutional Amendment would be to place this discrimination beyond the reach of the judicial system to rectify. This is a shameful act that does no credit to yourself or the nation.

I’ve used the word “discrimination” and I strongly believe that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Marriage Amendment are nothing more than blatant discrimination against lesbian and gay Americans. Please consider my arguments.

Since the beginning of human history men and women have been living together as couples. So have men and men as well as women and women. While few churches sanctioned same-sex relationships, they were marriages to those who were committed to them.

In the last century, both the federal government and the states began granting rights to those who were married. There are over a thousand of them. Yet no gay or lesbian couple was able to take advantage of them because neither the states nor the federal government would sanction their marriages. Indeed, in many states, gays and lesbians were actively persecuted and told their very relationships were illegal. Despite that persecution, many couples persisted in long term committed relationships lasting decades. That the state would not call them married does not lessen the fact that they were. They lacked only the marriage license and, sadly, the protections to their families that this license would grant.

Consider that less than 40 years ago, Virginia prohibited interracial marriage. Until 1967 it was law that whites only married whites and blacks only married blacks. Yet interracial couples existed and desired to marry. But, Virginia would not marry them and considered them to be illegal. It took a Supreme Court decision to overturn these laws because no legislature had the courage to do what was obviously the right thing. The parallel to today’s situation is clear. Do you consider this a decision by “activist judges”?

Instead of trying to build a society that discriminates against 10% of its population, I ask you to sponsor legislation that would bring America together. This would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and define civil marriage as the union between two people. It is the right thing to do. Instead of trying to create legislation that says that committed same-sex relationships are not real, let us work to create a society where all Americans can protect their families and live their lives openly without fear.

Marriage is not something that needs protecting. The rights of Americans, however, do. I hope and pray that you will come to see this. I would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss this issue further.

Sincerely,
Linda Thomas

Share

A Reply from Allen

Posted on by
Reply

As mentioned yesterday, in addition to my letter to Bush, I also sent letters to my Senators, George Allen and John Warner. To my surprise I
received a prompt reply from Allen. It has the feel of being a canned response, but at least it was a response. What follows is his response,
followed by my followup. His response is unaltered other than to fix text formatting so it is readable here.

Dear Ms. Thomas:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the issue of marriage and a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. I appreciate your concerns and want my position to be very clear.

On July 14, 2004, I voted with 47 other Senators to bring a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution up for a vote on the Senate Floor but, the majority of Senators did not support bringing this Amendment to a vote. Sadly, this kind of obstructionism has prevented confirmation of judges and recorded votes on many of our nation’s most important issues. I believe the people have a right to know exactly where their elected officials stand.

I do support a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution because I believe that recent events and future court decisions indicate that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

While I respect your position on this controversial issue, I’d like to point out that this Amendment did not seek to define or deny any power held by state legislatures to create civil union statutes and any benefits that may apply. It was specific only to the definition of traditional marriage and therefore State legislators would remain free to define civil unions without the courts forcing definitions upon them.

On a personal note, I have always believed that individuals should be treated with dignity and it is my heartfelt hope that everyone associated with the discussion of this issue will show each other that respect.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. If you would like to receive an e-mail newsletter about my initiatives to improve America, please sign up on my website (http://allen.senate.gov). It is an honor to serve you in the United States Senate, and I look forward to working with you to make Virginia and America a better place to live, learn, work and raise a family.

With warm regards, I remain

Sincerely,

Senator George Allen

I repied:

Mr. Allen,

Thank you for your prompt response. Though I disagree with your position and fervently hope to convince you to change your mind, I am glad to learn that you are listening.

Please carefully consider my argument. I believe it has real merit. I am not a lawyer and I don’t pretend to understand the minutiae of its details, but I do believe I understand the principles upon which America was founded.

What you referred to as “obstructionism” I viewed as a victory. This clearly puts us on different sides in this issue. And it makes it very difficult to have a meaningful discourse when there appears to be so little possibility of common ground. However, I believe it is important to try.

As a constituent it concerns me that you feel we need an amendment to ”protect the traditional definition of marriage”. Which is more
important? The perceived definition of a word or the rights and families of millions of Americans?

There was a theme that was central to my original letter. Unfortunately, you didn’t address it in your response yet it is fundamental to why your position should be reconsidered.

Discrimination.

That’s a strong word and one that is perhaps too freely used. But, in this circumstance, it is the proper word.

Since the beginning of human history men and women have been living together as couples. So have men and men as well as women and women. While few churches sanctioned same-sex relationships, they were marriages to those who were committed to them.

In the last century, both the federal government and the states began granting rights to those who were married. There are over a thousand of them. Yet no gay or lesbian couple was able to take advantage of them because neither the states nor the federal government would sanction their marriages. Indeed, in many states, gays and lesbians were actively persecuted and told their
very relationships were illegal. Despite that persecution, many couples persisted in long term committed relationships lasting decades. That the state would not call them married does not lessen the fact that they were. They lacked only the marriage license and, sadly, the protections to their families that this license would grant.

You speak of “traditional marriage”. Yet, what defines tradition? Consider that less than 40 years ago, our own Virginia prohibited interracial marriage. Until 1967 was it tradition that whites only married whites and blacks only married blacks? Or was it simply the only thing allowed by law? This is exactly the same. The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia’s law was unconstitutional and this situation is a clear parallel. If lesbians and gays had been allowed to marry they would have. The fact that thousands have chosen to do so in places where it has been permitted shows this. This is a case where people have mistaken a historically exclusionary process for tradition.

The case that the “traditional definition of marriage” is being protected when considered in this light really comes down to “we wouldn’t let you do it before and we still won’t let you do it now”. That is why passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment would be writing discrimination into our Constitution.

Let’s consider the argument from a second angle.

Marriage has existed in this country since its inception though government only recognized it for heterosexual couples.

You said, “this Amendment did not seek to define or deny any power held by state legislatures to create civil union statutes and any benefits that may apply”. Yet, the purpose of a civil union would be to create the benefits granted by marriage without actually being marriage. Aside from the fact that civil unions are not generally available in America - and some states including Virginia have prohibited them – this strikes me as the same argument of “separate but equal”. First, civil unions are not equal because they don’t exist for the most part, particularly at the federal level. A parallel set of legislation would be required to achieve what already exists. Having two sets of laws for what is the same thing in all but name strikes me as a bad idea. It would create extra bureaucracy when, with only minor changes, the existing infrastructure would suffice. Fundamentally, “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, well, it’s a duck”. Civil unions are marriages in all but name and we don’t need two processes for the same thing, particularly when one already exists an the other would require creation from the ground up.

Let’s now consider it from a third angle.

Marriage, as it is implemented today is really a two-headed beast. There is marriage as defined and administered by religious institutions and there is marriage as defined and administered by the states and federal government.

I am not arguing that any religious organization should be forced to marry any one it does not want to marry. The fundamental principle of separation of church and state makes that clear. I would not want the state telling me how to practice my religion, but similarly I would not want a religion telling my state who should be allowed to marry.

If the sticking point for same-sex marriage is the word “marriage” then perhaps we need to formally separate what the state does from what religions do. In this view, religions are free to marry whomever they choose, but the states perform civil unions. This creates a consistent view of the world that is fair to all Americans. All it would take is a simple law defining a civil union as the union between two people and granting it the rights and responsibilities of what had previously been civil marriage.

Finally let me return to your statement of “a constitutional amendment is needed to protect the traditional definition of marriage”. I am still unclear on exactly what marriage is being defended from. The only purpose of an amendment would be to prevent the courts from striking down what would otherwise be unconstitutional behavior on the part of the states and federal government. Our Constitution is the document that grants Americans the rights and freedoms we enjoy today. We should not use it to discriminate against our population.

Please consider these issues before you vote on this when it next comes before the Senate as it seems it likely will. I believe that if you carefully consider this issue you will find that the Federal Marriage Amendment is both not needed and fundamentally bad for America.

I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and follow this up with a discussion on this issue at your convenience. America is a diverse culture and claims to be an inclusive society. We should work towards creating harmony and understanding rather than trying to create second class Americans.

Again, thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Linda Thomas

Share

More Letters Sent

Posted on by
Reply

I sent variations on my letter to my senators here in Virginia (Allen and Warner). Both supported the federal marriage amendment earlier this year. I wanted them to know why their support for it was wrong. I also sent a copy to my representative in the 8th district (Moran).

In a gesture of utter futility, I also sent one to Marylin Musgrave of the 4th district in Colorado.

Share

My Letter to Bush & Cheney

Posted on by
Reply

I sent the following letter to Bush and Cheney today. I don’t honestly expect it to make any difference. I believe the man’s homophobia is so ingrained that he is unwilling to change. However, we do live in a democracy and it is both our right and our responsibility to let our elected officials know what we think. So, I’ve done so. If I vanish suddenly in the next few days, well, you’ll know why… :)

Mr. Bush,

As an American citizen, I was dismayed by the attempt earlier this year to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. At best it was an attempt to further divide the country during election season and at worst it was an attempt to write discrimination into our Constitution.

You recently were quoted in the press as saying, “To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust. A new term is a new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation. We have one country, one constitution, and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America.”

Yet, from my perspective, Karl Rove’s recent statements on Fox News show no signs of your intending to reach out to the millions of gay and lesbian Americans. If you really wish to heal the wounds of the last four years, I urge you to withdraw your support from this mendment.

There are many reasons why this amendment is both unnecessary and wrong for America.

In the debates you were asked if you thought that gay people chose to be homosexual or if they were simply born. You answered that you didn’t know. If that was an honest answer then I commend you on your honesty though I would hope that you would take the time to learn the answers before forming a policy. The truth is that most people don’t get to choose their sexuality. Mr. Kerry was right in his response that you should ask Mary Cheney though he took media heat for it. Few people would choose a path that would subject them to violent hate from a small, but vocal part of the population. Discriminating against people because of their differences – especially when those differences are through no fault of their own – isn’t something that should exist in law, much less in our most cherished of guiding documents, the Constitution.

I believe that I’ve heard you quoted in the media as saying that “the institution of marriage must be protected.” I’m not sure what that means. Protected from what? From whom? How does the marriage of two people of the same sex hurt or even slightly diminish the marriage of two heterosexual people?

Marriage, particularly in the last century has really consisted of two different ideas. There is religious marriage and civil marriage. Religious marriage is obviously administered by the various churches and religious bodies throughout the country. Civil marriage is administered by the state. The two, while related, are different. They are related because the state grants authority to some members of the clergy to perform civil marriage. They are different because one can obtain a civil marriage without religious marriage.

This is clear in existing practice. For example, many Roman Catholics are married in the Church and then subsequently divorce. If they choose to marry again in the future they may not do so in the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church does not recognize the dissolution of the original marriage, yet the state does recognize the ending of the civil marriage, allowing the possibility of the subsequent civil marriage.

I do not dispute the right of any religious body to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for whomever they choose. That marriage ceremony, while important in one’s spiritual life, has no meaning to the state. Nor should it because of the separation of church and state fundamental to our democracy. Religious marriage is not threatened in any way the state granting civil marriage to any couple. If that were true then the example above (and others like it) would show that harm, but religious marriage is thriving and not harmed in the slightest.

Several countries have begun granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples or granting civil unions with the same legal benefits as marriage. I am not aware of how these marriages have harmed any other marriage.

The claim has also been made that marriage is for procreation. While most couples do have children, I am aware of many married couples that do not have children either because they do not desire them or because they have been unable to have children. Does the lack of a child lessen their marriage in the eyes of the state?

Others have claimed that to grant allow same-sex marriage would hurt families. Again, I fail to see how. If it is through some fear that this will make homosexuality more popular then it is a misguided fear. Gay people do not choose to be gay. They simply recognize that they are. While recognition of same-sex marriages might make it easier for some to live their lives openly and without fear it would not hurt the family at all. Quite the opposite would be true. Gays and lesbian Americans have families also and the granting of marriage licenses would allow all families to be protected instead of just some.

You have been heard to use the phrase “activist judges” and Mr. Rove was also heard to use the phrase on Fox News. It appears to me that you have used this phrase whenever any judge rules against your position. It is the responsibility of the judicial branch to interpret our laws. Sometimes our laws are contradictory and the judge must untangle this as recently happened in Massachusetts. While you may disagree with the decision, using emotion-laden terms such as “activist judge” does nothing but try to cast our judicial system in an unfavorable light. If our legislative branch did its job properly and thought through the implications of the laws it passes then our judicial system would have less untangling to do.

Finally, gays and lesbians aren’t asking for something new. Couples have been living together since the beginning of human history. For lesbian and gay couples this has been marriage in all but name. Until the last roughly 100 years it didn’t matter because it has only been in that time that the state has begun granting significant rights to those that are married. From the perspective of the gay and lesbian population – perhaps 10% of the population – the federal marriage amendment would be to turn us into second class citizens. The federal government would be sending a clear message that our relationships aren’t held to be as real and as meaningful as heterosexual relationships. There are over 1,000 rights and protections that are implicitly granted to a married couple. Lesbian and gay couples can only create the protections of some of a small subset of these through the legal system. Denying these rights solely because same-sex relationships are atypical is discrimination. No other word describes the situation.

Many – though by no means all – clergy believe homosexuality is wrong, they also believe that divorce is wrong. Yet the government recognizes divorce. Why does the government take the view that divorce is to be allowed if it is wrong on religious grounds? The truth is that matters of religion are best left to religious institutions. Medical science has determined that homosexuality is not a disease. There is nothing medically or psychologically wrong with the millions of Americans that were born homosexual. For the government to deny them the right to protect their families can only be seen as discrimination.

To support the Federal Marriage Amendment would be not just promoting discrimination but it would be to put hate speech against our own people into our Constitution. Could any true American want this to happen? This document has been the foundation of our democracy. It has been the document that guarantees Americans rights and freedoms envied the world over. The last time we tried to take away rights with the Constitution was Prohibition and thankfully we recognized that this was a bad idea and repealed it. Let us not make the same mistake twice.

If you truly want to bring the country together after the bitterness of the campaign, then withdrawing your support for the Federal Marriage Amendment would be a good first step. A second step would be to support legislation that would grant the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. These steps would only strengthen our nation.

This might be a politically unpopular move but you say that you are a president that is not afraid to take an unpopular stand if it is the right thing to do. If you truly want to be a president for all Americans then it will be clear that what I have suggested is the right thing to do.

Thank you for your time and consideration and I hope and pray to hear that you will see that discrimination is not the right path for America.

Sincerely,
Linda Thomas

CC: Mr. Cheney

Share