Politics: Same-sex Marriage, Part 2
March 19th, 2005,Legislators and citizens across the country have a very real and pragmatic question before them: Should a state, or the nation itself, pass a constitutional amendment preventing same-sex couples from marrying or entering into a marriage-like union? South Dakota voters will face this question in 2006, and Minnesota voters may be forced to consider it as well in the same year.
Let’s first look at the text of the proposed amendments in South Dakota and Minnesota. In South Dakota, House Joint Resolution 1001 has been passed by both chambers of the South Dakota legislature. Its proposed constitutional amendment reads as follows:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota. The uniting of two or more persons in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota.”
In Minnesota, the state Senate is considering whether or not to put an amendment before the voters. The proposed amendment, as stated in Senate Bill 1691, reads:
“Only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent.”
My own views on the issue are straightforward, and I arrive at them with no hesitation: Such amendments unjustly discriminate against gays and lesbians who wish to enter into a legally recognized partnership, whether that partnership is called marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership.
In writing this column, I’ve struggled with what more I want to say on this issue. Others can speak more knowledgeably about the legal and religious arguments on both sides of this issue. However, I do want to briefly express why I feel strongly about the issue.
I am a heterosexual male, a Christian, a husband, and a father, and I believe that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, or at the very least to enter into civil unions. Why do I believe this? Because I’ve known many gays and lesbians over the years and I want them to enjoy the same kind of happiness I have in my marriage. Because my gut tells me that they did not simply choose to be homosexual as some kind of a “lifestyle” choice; rather, they were simply born this way. Because I do not feel that a successful gay or lesbian marriage threatens my own marriage or the institution of marriage in general. Because having a same-sex couple make a commitment of fidelity to one another makes our society better, not worse; it strengthens society by providing stability in relationships and encourages fidelity.
It’s understandable to me that there has been a powerful reaction against same-sex marriage in our country over the last several years. Legally recognizing same-sex unions goes against centuries of tradition. It involves the public recognition and sanction of relationships that many, if not most, people do not understand and, to be blunt, find repugnant.
I’m a member of the United Methodist Church, one of many religious denominations that are deeply divided on this issue. I know there are Biblical passages that condemn homosexuality. I respect the opinions of the many, many people who disagree with me, and I know that they hold their views with strong conviction.
Although this reaction against same-sex marriage–and it is an essentially reactionary sentiment–is understandable, I also find it disappointing. I’m disappointed that people would deny the benefit of a socially sanctioned union to their gay friends, neighbors, co-workers, and relatives. If they do not know any homosexual people in their communities, then I’m disappointed by that too. Either there are gays and lesbians in their midst who do not feel it is safe to come out of the closet, or gays and lesbians have moved to friendlier places.
I believe that one day most Americans will look back on this era in the same way that they now look back on the Jim Crow era of racial segregation and discrimination–that is, with a sense of sadness and bewilderment that a minority was treated unjustly.
Much can and will happen on this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court may strike down state marriage amendments as unconstitutional, or it may let them stand. Traditionalists may realize their ultimate victory and attach a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution, where no court could strike it down. Or, our culture may conclude that gay and lesbian couples deserve to have legally recognized partnerships and rescind these marriage amendments. I expect the latter will be the case, and that it will take some time to get there.