Thoughts on Marriage Equality

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