In the upcoming November election, Washington will have an
opportunity to make history by becoming the one of the first states (Maryland, Maine and Minnesota have the issue on the ballot Nov 6) to embrace marriage
equality for same sex couples by a vote of the people—not by the result of a
court judgment or a simple act of the state legislature. Washington voters are being asked to accept
the marriage equality law enacted earlier this year. In doing so, we can demonstrate to the rest
of the country and to the world that we are a state that embraces diversity;
that we will not be swayed by stereotypes and fear mongers; and that we are
truly committed to equal rights for all citizens.
Those who seek to reject the law argue that they want to stand
by traditional family values and protect children. What message are they sending to the
children they seek to protect? If you
value children, why would you send the message that unless a family fits the
‘traditional’ married; two-parent; stay-at-home mom; go to church on Sunday model
it is inferior? This is offensive not
only to homosexual couples (and parents) but to all families who don’t fit the
Ozzie and Harriet/Ward and June Cleaver family structure. A child who is loved
and supported will grow into a productive and well-adjusted adult regardless of
family circumstances.
Another offensive aspect of this debate is the argument that
prohibiting homosexuals to marry is necessary to protect ‘traditional’ moral values.
Implicit in this argument is an assertion that homosexuals are inherently immoral. That we are at best suspect and at worst
evil. A person should not be stereotyped
by sexual orientation any more than by religion, race, ethnicity or gender. A person should be judged by their actions
and character alone.
The social-conservative right uses the stereotype of gays
and lesbians as sexually promiscuous, hedonistic and self-centered as a justification
for their arguments against homosexual marriage. That extending civil marriage recognition to homosexual relationships diminishes marriage and threatens the very core of our society. What gay and lesbian persons seek by
gaining marriage equality is to join in society as traditional family
units. When we buck the stereotype by
entering into committed relationships we are not weakening society, endangering
children or undermining traditional values.
Allowing homosexual couples to make (hopefully) life-long commitments to
one another strengthens society and confirms the importance of the institution of marriage. Those who believe in the importance of marriage should be happy that homosexuals want to make such a commitment to one another.
It is also not a culture war on Christianity or any other
religion as many believe.
Even within Christianity there is disagreement on this issue
ranging from strong condemnation of homosexuality and same sex marriage; to ‘don’t
ask don’t tell’ tolerance; to allowing homosexuals to minister and to
marry. Regardless, nothing about
allowing civil marriage rights to homosexuals takes away the right of any
religion or denomination to follow its own teachings and values. The state cannot make a church minister
perform a same sex marriage any more than it can force him or her to perform a heterosexual
marriage between individuals who don’t meet the faith’s marriage requirements (for
example, remarriage after divorce). That is, for the state to recognize
a civil marriage between homosexual persons is no more of a threat to religion
and society than state recognition of a marriage of previously divorced
individual(s). Thomas Jefferson, a
founding father who advocated for a strict separation of religion and
government, might well argue: “But it does me no injury for my gay neighbors to
marry. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. “
Gay and lesbian couples contribute to our society every bit
as much as heterosexual couples. We love
our partners and children as much as they do.
Why should we not be granted the same recognition and have the same
opportunity to make a commitment to our partners? Why should we continue to sit at the back of
the bus and be stereotyped as immoral and promiscuous? Extending this important legal recognition to
us does not threaten heterosexual couples; it does nothing
to weaken social institutions; and it does not force anything upon religious faith.
Instead of diminishing the institution
of marriage, confirming marriage equality underscores its importance and will
strengthen and enrich society.
Believing
with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God,
that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the
legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I
contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people
which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus
building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas
Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
|
