The second article comes out of New Jersey, where the state Supreme Court has ordered that all NJ public schools must protect gay students from harassment, bullying, or any threat based on their sexual orientation. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/nyregion/22gay.html)
My initial reaction to these two stories is - well, duh! Is this really rocket science?
Of course we should protect ALL children from bullying and hateful or discriminatory behavior (regardless of the reason they are being treated badly). That is not just good common sense, but also the only moral, ethical, and logical thing to do if we want to prevent more school violence and reduce the number of teenagers filling our jails. Failing to ban sexuality-based bullying or hate crimes is tantamount to saying "It's okay to harass someone, beat them up, or even kill them - but only if they're gay".
And of course Rhode Island (and every other state in the nation) should recognize the legal validity of a marriage license issued in another US state, regardless of whether the couple is heterosexual or gay/lesbian. That is what the Full Faith and Credit clause was intended to ensure. Regardless of the wishes of our right-wing, fundamentalist President, or the former Republican Conservative Congress, or of Christian fundamentalists - gay people are still people, and if they live here, they are most likely US citizens. Therefore they are, by virtue of their very existence as human beings and Americans, entitled to EVERY right that I and all other heterosexual people are entitled to... including the right to marry the person of their choice.
If we begin to allow individual states to pick and choose which marriages they will recognize, where does that lead? Will there come a time when one or more states will not recognize my own marriage because there's an age gap of more than 10 years between myself and my husband? Will second marriages stop being recognized if the first marriage ended in divorce because some states (and their fundamentalist residents/leaders) think divorce is a "sin" or "immoral"?
As a child of the 60's, I cut my teeth on scenes of black people being hit with police batons and sprayed with fire hoses because they asked for the simple dignity of being recognized as equal to their white countrymen. Even at the tender age of 6 and 7, I could see how wrong this was, and I was ashamed of my own race for being so damn stupid and hateful. It took years of peaceful protests, marches, court battles, and even the murders of some eloquent and truly loving people who saw the illogic and backward stupidity of discrimination for what it was and chose to take a stand, before things finally began to change.
Is that what it will take for gays to be given equal protection under the law and a true equality that extends even unto the "sacred" ground of marriage? Will we have to continue reading and hearing about cases of gay bashing and loving families that are denied rights such as inheritance, custody of children, medical coverage and decision-making, etc., simply because SOME of our fellow citizens are afraid that allowing gays to marry will somehow take something away from "traditional" marriage?
What exactly are they afraid we will lose? How does allowing a gay couple to marry do any damage whatsoever to traditional marriages? As a married woman, I have no fear that allowing my gay friends and relatives to marry will somehow make my marriage less important or special. I married Ephraim because he is my true love, and I wanted to make a formal and lasting commitment to him and to the life we share as a family. Allowing a gay or lesbian couple to make that same choice and feel the same joy I felt as I said my vows can never detract from that. If anything, it would add to my joy, because I would no longer feel a certain sense of guilt for being able to enjoy a status they can never achieve.
Furthermore, why do we continue to allow our government to "authorize" marriage at all? What is the point in that?
A few hundred years ago, people in some parts of the world could not marry without the consent of the King (usually the English King). Local lords were even granted the right to force themselves on the bride before her wedding.
But this is America and it's 2007. We no longer live under the thumb of Old English law, nor are we ruled by a King. So perhaps it's time we stop allowing our government to issue "licenses" for us to marry the person of our choice, as if we do not have the right to marry without the "King's" approval. Lets get our government out of our bedrooms, and stop allowing them to dictate whom we can marry, or force us to pay them (license fees) for the right to do so.
Granted that there are legal issues involved in this, but they could easily be addressed by offering a marriage registration option instead. No more asking permission from your local or state government. Instead, you marry the person of your choice, at the time of your choice, and through the means of your choice (priest, minister, relative, paid officiant, etc). Then you and your new spouse fill out a form attesting that the marriage took place, and outlining the basic details (bride, groom, officiant, witnesses, and location). That gets filed with the state's vital records, and both spouses are then granted full spousal rights (inheritance, medical decisions, custody, property, and retirement/disability benefits). Naturally, laws against marrying close family members and protections for minors would have to be upheld, but as long as the couple are both adults, not married to anyone else, and not closely related to each other, then the government should have no role in the choice to marry other than adding the marriage to the public record.
The issue of allowing gay marriage would not be an issue at all if we did not continue to accept the idea that our own government can dictate the conditions of any marriage we choose to enter into. That is simply a false belief perpetrated by our government to maintain control over the populace. Remember that our constitution begins with the words "We the people..." WE are in charge here, and as sovereign individuals capable of running our own lives, we have no need for the permission of some clerk in our local town hall in order to marry the person of our choice.
Our government's purpose is to protect and defend us, not only from outside threats, but also from the government itself and any intrusion of government into our privacy and personal decisions. It is time we reminded our leaders that their job is not to legislate our morality, approve our marriage choices, or dictate who is and is not entitled to equal protection under the law. Their job is simply to uphold the law, and ensure that ALL Americans are allowed to live freely and in peace. That includes protecting our freedom to love who we love, and marry them (regardless of their gender).
What kind of world do I want?
- A world where discrimination in all it's forms does not exist.
- A world where two single, unrelated adults who love each other and want to make a lifetime commitment to each other do not need anyone's permission or approval to marry or live with dignity.
- A world where our children are not taught to hate their peers for being different (whether the difference is racial, religious, sexual, or anything else), and where such hate is not fostered and encouraged by the adults in their lives.
- A world where equality is not just an ideal, but a fact of life.
1 comment:
Thanks for writing this.
Post a Comment