110833821
Let me state this is as clearly as possible. As a straight person, I have no right to oppose same-sex marriage.
If you are straight, neither do you. That might seem harsh so let me pose an analogy. A white person living in the 1950s, had no right to disapprove of an African-American’s right to vote in the Deep South. The right to vote, eat at any public restaurant and use any public swimming pool is a civil right, not one that is subject to a vote. In the same way, the right to marry is not yours to grant; it is a civil right.
I am not naive. Public opinion is extremely important. It was important when Americans saw pictures of Bull Connor unleashing police dogs and fire hoses on African-American protesters in Birmingham, Ala., on their televisions. Connor unwittingly made the cause of civil rights sympathetic to white America. Favorable public opinion enabled lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlawed major forms of racial discrimination.
It so happens that public opinion on same-sex marriage in the last few years has stunningly moved in its favor. No, I am not equating the harshness of racial segregation with gays’ right to marry, but the opposition to both has had deep roots in both our cultural and religious institutions. Don’t forget that the Southerners’ rationale for racial segregation often came from their interpretation of the Bible.
As public opinion now strongly favors approval of gay marriage, politicians from both parties are falling into line. We will see in a few months whether the Supreme Court decides in its favor, but anyone who believes that courts are moved only by legalistic arguments would be greatly mistaken.Yet the feeling persists among many politicians and some of the gay community that the right for gays to marry appropriately be left to the ballot box.
Part of this viewpoint is because of a misperception about marriage. Some persist in viewing the principal right to marry as based on procreation and raising children and therefore being limited only to heterosexual couples. But history shows us that marriage is an evolving institution. The Western concept of marriage has come a long way from the days when it was an arranged business deal between two families. The very concept of marrying for love and companionship would have been viewed as crazy by the old world. It is now commonplace for heterosexual couples who can’t procreate to marry. Meanwhile gay couples not only are adopting and raising children, but through new fertilization techniques can procreate as well.
Often overlooked by opponents is that marriage is both a civil and religious institution. The State does not require couples to be married in a church. No one, certainly not the gay community, suggests that churches be forced to marry gay couples. This is one of the key elements of why religious beliefs should not trump the civil right of same-sex couples.
You do not have the right to define marriage for non-members of your church. While you may be offended by the idea of same-sex marriage, that should carry no weight in society granting that right to same-sex couples anymore than being offended by interracial marriage should trump interracial couples from marrying. Granting the right to marry to same-sex couples does not adversely affect your rights. If the court finds your rights are not diminished, than you have no dog in this hunt if you are straight. The right to equal protection before the law is guaranteed, but there is no corresponding right for you and those who hold similar opinions to not be offended.
Many observers on both sides of this issue believe the court will wind up protecting the legalization of same-sex marriage in states, but not obligate the federal government to recognize it. While some would cheer that result, I would not. The civil right to marry should not be left up to each state. We fought the Civil War, in large part, over whether the Union could exist half slave and half free.
I am afraid that if we left our basic rights up to the ballot box, civil rights would not fare well, even today. The idea that you could be considered married in one state, but not another is repugnant. Besides many of the benefits that go along with being legally married are federal benefits, it seems to me, mandating a decision for a federal civil right to marry is the only just and legal outcome.
We live in a state that has been described by James Carville as Philadelphia on one side, Pittsburgh on the other and Alabama in between. Realistically, what hope would any gay couple living in Pennsylvania have of being able to marry within their lifetime in this state? Pundits say the time isn’t right politically for the federal government to grant marriage rights to all of its citizens. They fear a terrible backlash. The polls don’t back them up.
My wife and I recently attended a memorial for a gay friend who was with his partner for 65 years. And yet they never enjoyed the same right to marry as someone such as Kim Kardashian.
Contact the South Philly Review at editor@southphillyreview.com.
110833821
110833831
