Friday, Feb. 27, 1998
Right to wed
Government should not determine if same-sex couples can marry
Earlier this month, some people observed National Freedom to Marry Day. The event protested the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law in 1996. The act essentially defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and in the event same-sex marriage was legalized in a state, other states would not have to recognize such unions.The act does nothing to preserve or protect the institution of marriage. Instead, it merely singles out gays and lesbians as second-class citizens and invalidates any relationship they might have.
To label that which is considered "basic" for one group
"special" for another amounts to nothing more than discrimination.
Marriage is a civil right, not a "special" one.
Same-sex marriage is about extending those rights, privileges
and responsibilities that heterosexuals take for granted to a
segment of the population that has long been discriminated against.
The moral objections of one group should not restrict the freedoms
of another. It's un-American and it's wrong.
Gays and lesbians have long been condemned for their alleged
promiscuity, but when they ask for the right to establish socially
and legally recognized, monogamous relationships, their commitment
is judged to be a threat to society. Such rhetoric is simply hypocritical.
Proponents of the act charge that marriage is an institution already
in trouble, and that expanding it to include gays would further
weaken it.
Why should gays and lesbians be punished, when they bear no responsibility
for the weakened system? Marriage doesn't need to be defended
from people who want to commit themselves to lifelong relationships.
Marriage is more than an emotional commitment, however.
What many people don't realize (or take for granted) is that marriage
also is about a host of legal and economic benefits currently
reserved only for heterosexual married couples.
A woman can marry a man after knowing him only a short time and
instantly gain a host of legal and economic benefits and protections.
If that same woman has a committed long-term relationship with
another woman, the situation changes dramatically. If her partner
falls ill or dies, she has no more legal authority than would
a neighbor or roommate.
Not too long ago, our society prohibited interracial marriages
on similar grounds.
History has proven such claims erroneous. It would do the same
with the critics of same-sex marriage.
We can only hope that the struggle to accord civil rights to gays
and lesbians becomes a reality in less time than the granting
of civil rights to blacks in the 1960s.
The legalization of same-sex marriage is just one in a long line
of steps that can bring us closer to what America should be --
a place where everyone enjoys equal protection and benefits under
the law.
The Defense of Marriage Act does nothing but stand in the way.
