Friday, February 28, 2014

Say "I Do" to Marriage Equality

I’m getting married!  Well, not now. I’m not even dating anyone.  But, I do hope to be married one day.  I believe we all hope to be in a relationship where we are loved unconditionally and made to feel special.  Marriage is the bedrock foundation of family in our country. In fact, fifteen times since 1888, the U.S. Supreme Court has held marriage to be a fundamental right of all individuals.  In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause…”
For reasons passing understanding, the government plays a role in marriage.  What I mean is the government issues marriage licenses, grants divorces; and is in the midst of trying to define marriage.  It’s a pretty big issue: “gay marriage” and “defense of marriage” are terms we hear in the media quite a lot lately.  Lawyers and legislators are busy every day, too; locking horns and battling over who should be allowed to marry.  So, let’s begin by defining what I’m talking about today: Marriage Equality.  Not gay. Not straight.  Just equal.
Make no mistake, marriage is big business.  I don’t mean weddings, and all the related expenses, or the endless TV shows about weddings, brides, bride-zillas, dresses, cakes, and the list goes on and on.  I mean, the business of marriage!  Couples who aren’t married pay higher taxes.  Married couples have legal rights of survivorship, and can make unlimited gifts to each other without being taxed. Married couples are entitled to financial benefits relating to their spouses, such as disability, pension and social security benefits.  And, marriage offers 1,138 Federal benefits and responsibilities, not including hundreds more offered by every state.
What do I mean by marriage equality?  Imagine you and your fiancé go to the county courthouse to get a marriage license.  You pay the fee, but the clerk refuses to issue the license.  Why?  Well, they don’t approve of who you plan to marry.  And, the law says you can’t marry the person you’ve chosen, and who has chosen you.  Now, instead of picturing a same-sex couple, imagine that one of you is white, and the other is black.
Nearly 50 years ago, around the time my parents were born, Richard and Mildred Loving were banned from the State of Virginia for being married.  Richard was white.  Mildred was black.  Embarrassing, right?  They sued for their right to be married, took the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court... and won - opening the way for interracial couples in the U.S. to marry legally.  How fitting that their name would be “Loving”.
The New York Times recently ran an Editorial discussing the expanding influence of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v Windsor. The overall premise of the article is that the Court’s decision clears the way for an expansion of equal rights among the gay community.
Nobody at the courthouse interviewed or screened my parents when they went for their marriage license.  Nobody made sure my mother was tall enough, or that my dad was thin enough, or that they fit some state-sanctioned ideal for how a couple should look.  So, why would we do that to anyone?  The State’s role in marriage is ministerial, meaning – you pay the fee, and the State issues the license.  Whether a church will marry you is a different matter, and churches are free to not bless any marriage.  The Catholic Church, for example, doesn’t allow divorced people to be married in their church, unless the previous marriage is annulled.  So, if the government really wants to regulate marriage, perhaps we should start by outlawing divorce.

      Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah introduced S.1808 - Marriage and Religious Freedom Act to the senate on December 12, 2013. This amendment specifies that the term "person" includes anyone regardless of their religious beliefs and or partner.It prohibits the government form discriminating against a person in accordance with their religious beliefs, marriage (recognized as the union of one man and one woman) or sexual relations. Currently, this amendment has only been introduced to the Senate and has just begun it's long, enduring process through the legislature."This non-discrimination bill is significant, indeed, very important,” said Archbishop Cordileone.  “It would prevent the federal government from discriminating against religious believers who hold to the principle that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. This is of fundamental importance, as increasingly such individuals and organizations are being targeted for discrimination by state governments – this must not spread to the federal government (USCCB Press Conference)." Many people view marriage equality as a threat towards religious beliefs and religious freedom, causing very negative views on this amendment. I believe that 45 years from now, denying couples the right to marry will be an embarrassing blemish in our history and denying religious freedoms, much like our embarrassment today for the way we treated interracial couples 45 years ago.  Marriage and religious freedom is a fundamental, constitutional right.  Not just for some of us, but for all Americans.  I’m not willing to give up any of my rights, which is why I support marriage and religious equality for all Americans.

2 comments:

Unknown said...

While reading "Say "I Do" to Marriage Equality" by classmate Sydney Spencer, images of what my future wedding might look like immediately started fluttering through my head. What will the dress look like? What flowers and color scheme will I have? What flavors will the cake consist of?! Then as I read on I quickly began to imagine what it would be like if I had finally found the Prince Charming that everyone is always fussing about and was on my way to my happy ending, only to be stopped in my tracks by the ignorance of someone who does not agree with my choice in a partner.

Then I began thinking of a recent fight my boyfriend and I had had over a controversial movie that I watched for the first time a couple of weeks ago. The notorious, "cowboy love story" Brokeback Mountain. My boyfriend had immediately reacted with disgust when I notified him of the fact that I was currently watching the movie. I, with my anti-discriminatory views, became really mad with his ignorance. I questioned him, "If a cowgirl and a cowboy fell in love one summer on a mountain and they met up periodically throughout their lives at that same mountain, would that be a sweet timeless love story?" "Yes!" he replied. "Then why is it not same in the instance that it is the same situation only with two cowboys?" I further question. He couldn't give me an answer, but in turn apologized for his rude reaction that had offended my personal beliefs.

I greatly admire Spencer's choice of the words "Marriage Equality" in place of the frequently used alternatives "defense of marriage" and "gay marriage". And, I also love that she gives the issue a personal feel by saying,

"Imagine you and your fiance go to the county courthouse to get a marriage license. You pay the fee, but the clerk refuses to issue the license. Why? Well, they don't approve of who you plan to marry. And, the law says you can't marry the person you've chosen, and who has chosen you."

This is exactly the point was I was trying to get across to my boyfriend! I doesn't matter whether it's an opposite-sex, Biracial, or same-sex couple. Love is love! The Declaration of Independence assures that all men and women are ensured certain unalienable rights. We've all heard the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" spiel. So is marriage not the pursuit of happiness with another person? I believe it is. That is why I stand by my classmate's opinion of marriage equality. "I am not willing to give up any of my rights, which is why I support marriage and religious equality for all Americans!"

CecilyJosephine said...

I agree strongly with Sydney Spencer's argument that the marriage debate is nothing but an argument over equal representation. Brown v. Board of Ed. taught us long ago that separate is inherently unequal, in the eyes of constitutional law. That we are having this debate now, nevermind 45 years from now, is embarrassing, in my view. The concept is not difficult. All citizens are afforded equal rights and equal access to state and federal resources. Denying marriage denies equal access to marriage benefits to homosexuals. Without even getting into religious and social definitions of what constitutes marriage, denial thereof is patently unconstitutional.

Furthermore, conservative arguments fall short in other respects. The idea that marriage equality redefines marriage any more than allowing women to choose partners or restricting marriage to two people (another thing I find silly) does is wholly fallacious. Marriage, for starters, is not defined by the Bible. Both human civilisation and marriage traditions existed long before Abrahamic religion. Even if marriage was created by God and unequivocally defined in the Bible, we hardly follow the letter of Biblical dogma, today. If we did, no blended fabrics would exist and I could be jailed for growing wheat and corn side by side.

More extreme arguments against marriage equality only get ridiculous from the religious right, truthfully. The slippery slope always comes up. If gays can marry, it goes. why not polygamists? Well, WHY NOT? Assuming polygamy wherein all parties are consenting adults freely entering the arrangement, exactly who is to dictate that most personal of household arrangement? And then, the argument continues, why not kids? Or Horses? Or brooms? Last I checked, children, horses, and brooms had no legal right to consent, or even thumbs in the latter two cases, with which to sign a contract. Because that is what marriage is. A contract. The idea of holy covenant is an add-on to soften the edges of what amounts to a document choosing how one’s body and estate is handled after death.

Ultimately, LEGALLY, whether gay or straight, all U.S. citizens must be afforded equality. In the absence of a theocracy, the proscription of rights based on theological morality is asinine. What church a person does or doesn’t celebrate a union is has nothing to do with the fact that a marriage license is issued by the STATE as a contractual agreement between the STATE and INDIVIDUALS. This is a business arrangement, not a pastoral one. In order to meet the constitutional mandate of equality for all citizens, we must either allow homosexual unions, on par with heterosexual, or disallow ALL legal forms of marriage and leave such things to the churches. Either way, ALL citizens must have access to ALL government benefits and human rights.