From: FORMNATL@aol.com Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 12:24:06 -0400 (EDT) rod@ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au, submit@qrd.org, OnQGwen@aol.com Subject: ARGUMENTS/LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (please update on websites) ARGUMENTS/LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (revised 5/97) "Gays Can't Marry Because That Wouldn't Be Marriage": * As a college student from Texas so cleverly put it: "It is also argued that a same-sex marriage is impossible since marriage means a 'special relationship between a man and a woman.' This position is so circular that I'm tempted to trace around it and draw a frowny-face in the middle." {1} * "There is no 'always has been and ever shall be' truth of marriage." {2} It has been many different things to many different people through different times and cultures; some involving same-sex marriage. The meaning of marriage has never been "frozen in time." If it were, women might still be basically the property of their husbands. Marriage is evolving and changing to become more equal and inclusive, as it always has done. * Idealized conceptions of "traditional" marriage is no more reflective of actual heterosexual marriages than it is of gay ones. The focus should be on the reality of people's lives. * The right to marry, if it is to mean anything,must mean the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice. Those who say gays can marry, so long as it's someone of the opposite sex, are making the same argument once told white people in love with someone of a different race: "Sorry, pick someone else." Needless to say, people tell this to other people are not about to have it applied to themselves. * Marriage is not a zero sum game, in which one couple's marriage has value only because another couple is denied it. If the discrimination against gay people ends, the institution of marriage will be strengthened. Our Rights as Americans: * On the 1990 Census form, 1.6 million gay couples told the United States government: "We exist." * Whether same-sex couples should be able to legally marry eventually comes down to just two questions: "Do gay people love?," and, "Are they Americans?" * Some people who oppose gay marriage and other gay rights issues say they oppose unfair discrimination, but. . . But what? Discrimination is wrong. Period. * This isn't just Jesse Helms' country. It isn't Pat Robertson's country. This is our country, too. * If a loved one goes to the hospital, we often have no legal right to make decisions about his or her treatment. Sometimes we can't even see them. And when someone dies, we often have no rights even then. Members of the biological family of the deceased may try to pretend the relationship never existed. They could prevent the surviving partner from even coming to the funeral. A couple could be together for thirty years or more, but it would make no difference. Is that fair? Is it right? * There can be no talk of "special rights" when it comes to gay marriage. For straights, marriage is an option. For gays, it isn't. They really do have a "special right." That's wrong. * "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness. Yet, the freedom to marry is not a vital right essential only to the happiness of heterosexuals; it is vital to the happiness of homosexuals as well." {3} * The equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution says that equal protection of the laws cannot be denied to people similarly situated. Gay couples form relationships, and sometimes raise families, in a way remarkably--even boringly--similar to any heterosexual couple. We are similarly situated, and to be treated as anything less is not only unconstitutional and unChristian: It's wrong. * "We have ministers of justice, not ministers of people's passions." {4} Our judges and public servants are supposed to follow the law and do what's right, not what may be popular at the moment. * The country's founders made the United States a Republic rather than a direct democracy for a reason. James Madison and other believed that elected officials would and should have a more well- thought-out view of what was in the best interest of the nation than would the fleeting winds of popularity. Further, courts were instated not to defer to legislatures or any majority, but in order to be a third branch of government co-equal with the legislative and executive branches. * The more you know about the history of miscegenation (marital mixing of the races) laws, the more you realize how much they have in common with today's discrimination against same-sex couples. Yesterday's courts said allowing inter-racial marriages would mean they would also have to allow incestuous marriage; an argument trotted out once again for gays. * In 1958, opposition to interracial marriage was far greater than opposition to marriage for gay people is today. According to a Gallup poll, 94% of of whites opposed them. {5} At most, 70% oppose marriage for gays now. * If mixed-race had waited for a majority of Americans to approve of interracial marriages before making them legally valid, they would have waited until 1991. Even then, it was only by 48 to 42 percent.{6} * Richard Loving, of the Loving v. Virginia lawsuit that finally struck down anti-miscegenation laws in 1967, told the lawyer arguing his case: "Mr. Cohen, tell the Court I love my wife." He hoped that would be enough, and so do we. * Do you know who we are, America? We're foster and adoptive parents, parents who are often able to adopt only those children the rest of America finds inconvenient. We're raising mentally and physically disabled children, who were placed with us as a "last resort." But we bring them up them gladly, without sorrow, and with unlimited love. That's who we are. * The ability to procreate is held out as a condition for marriage only as a way to deny marriage to gay people. No heterosexual couple could ever be denied marriage for this reason--that would be unconscionable, just as it is unconscionable to so deny it to gay people. * Eight to ten million children are now being raised in three million gay households. {7} Domestic Partnership Not Enough: * Even from a purely mechanical point of view--the best light in which domestic partnerships can be seen--domestic partnership plans still fall far short of the protections afforded by actual marriage. Only a handful of localities have enacted such ordinances. Many of these are literally only paper recognition: You get to "register" at city hall, but that's it. Others give such basic benefits as the right to choose medical care for an incapacitated partner, certain estate provisions, and, if you're a city employee, the right to bereavement leave and spousal benefits such as health care. In reality, the quasi-marriage nature of domestic partnerships makes the benefits all to quasi as well. * Nothing can substitute for the strength and number of rights regarding one's spouse provided by legal marriage. No matter how many other legal contracts one may draw up, they will never equal it. In any case, trying to create a "separate but equal" institution is, as we all know, inherently unequal. * Even if the best ordinances currently in effect were in force everywhere in America--a proposition actually far less likely to happen than gay marriage itself--domestic partnership would still fall far short of the numerous, nearly unbreakable benefits that marriage affords automatically. In the District of Columbia, which has marriage laws similar to those in many states, there are 131 marital benefits; the typical domestic partnership plan has about one-tenth that, and the rights it does provide are not the most important ones. * Marriage is what we should be working for. Heterosexual couples often have the choice between marriage or domestic partnership: Gay people have at most only dps; no choice at all. If everyone could choose from a range of options, that would be fine. * Are domestic partnership plans a pathway to full marriage rights, or a dead end? Morality and Values: * "Traditional values" that say gay people don't have a right to marriage aren't really values at all. They devalue love, human dignity, and coherent, caring families. Attitudes like that aren't "values"; they're devalues. * For some people, "traditional values" is their misleading, homophobic term of art. It turns out to mean, simply, hatred. "Morality" is another technical term of theirs; it means bigotry. * Many of those who speak out against gay people have hardly any actual facts about us. Those who would lecture us on the so-called immorality of our lives don't know the first thing about how we actually live them. * Exactly what do the "conservatives" conserve? Families torn apart because of homophobia, instead of held together through honesty? What are the opponents of marriage for gay people trying to conserve, and why? * "Conservatives say they abhor gay marriage because they value marriage. The truth is they abhor gay marriage because they abhor gays." {8} * Though we're certainly not surprised to discover a conservative opposition to gay marriage, their aversion to it is curious given what they profess to detest about homosexuality. These people say they don't like gays being promiscuous (as if this is true anyway), yet they forbid us from taking part in an institution that values monogamy and commitment. They can't have it both ways. * We find groups who oppose the gay community, claiming they're in favor of "traditional values." Yet they oppose one form of the most traditional value there is; love. There is nothing immoral about the idea of gay marriage because there is nothing immoral about love. * Many of those who oppose same-sex marriage say they do so on religious grounds. First, in America, we have a separation of church and state. Second, we know that many who object to homosexuality because the bible (they say) condemns it are very selective with their biblical literalism. * Bishop John Spong of the Episcopal Church calls for the blessing of gay couples. He points out that the church blesses fox hunts and even warships. The church has no problem blessing a vehicle whose sole function is to reign nothing but death and destruction, yet refuses to bless the union of two people who are in love. * The reason why individuals get married is far more personal than law or religion. People desire companionship; they want someone to spend their lives with. They may have children, or they may not. But even if they don't, the legal recognition of their relationship does not diminish. And neither does the measure of their love. * ". . .the primary reason that God created a companion for Adam is not said to be procreation, but because God 'God said, "It is not good for man to be alone.'" [Genesis 2: 18] Complementarity and compansionship are at least as much a part of God's plan in creation as childbirth. Indeed it is remarkable that in the Genesis account childbirth emerges only as an afterthought. . ." {9} * "In a recent letter. . .characterizes the efforts to extend the right to marry to same-sex couples as a demand that he personally approve their moral decisions. Why is it, I wonder, that this argument never comes up in the granting of marriage licenses to heterosexuals? A man can. . .abandon his wife and children, fail to support them, marry another woman and have more children with her. He can abandon his wife while she is hospitalized, deathly ill with cancer, divorce her, marry another woman, and still have enough respect left to become Speaker of the House (Look it up.)" {10} Sample Letters to the Editor To the Editor: Thanks very much for your thoughtful piece on marriage rights for gay couples. This is indeed an issue whose time has arrived, not only because it's likely to become a reality in Hawaii, but because granting such rights is the right thing to do. There are numerous reasons why gay people want, need, and deserve the right to marry. The heart of the matter, though, is that many of us have been living married lives for years; the fact that the law has not yet caught up to that is just an unfortunate, hopefully temporary situation. The reality is that to all outward appearances, many of our relationships are already marriages. It is only fair that they be so treated. Sincerely, ___________________ ------------------------------- To the Editor: It's unfortunate that, given all the real political problems in this country, any time should be wasted on preventing anyone from marrying the person he or she loves. No less than straight people, gay people form loving, committed relationships; often involving parenthood. Even if they fail to understand that gay people also love, I wonder if those who oppose our right to marry stop to think how this denial might affect children's lives. For example, if one partner dies, his or her survivor may have no say whatsoever as to how they will then be raised. They could easily be taken from him or her, and placed in a foster home, even if the children are so taken literally kicking and screaming. Clearly one need not be able to have children in order to marry. Many heterosexuals choose not to, or cannot, have children; and yet it's clearly wrong for them to be denied marriage licenses. So-called "conservatives" will claim that marriage is just for procreation, but the fact is that argument is made only in the context of trying to deny marriage to gay people. In this country anyway, arguments like that just aren't good enough. Marriage is the right of all people, and for that to mean anything, we as gay people have the right to marry the person we love. Sincerely, ___________________ FOOTNOTES******************************** {1} "Entering Same-Sex Marriages Should Be Right of All," by David Barranco, in The Daily Texan, January 25, 1996. {2} "Marriage, Law, and Gender: A Feminist Inquiry," by Nan Hunter, in Law & Sexuality, Vol 1: 18-19 (1991). {3} "Family, Definitions, and The Constitution: On The Antimiscegenation Analogy," by Mark Strasser, in Suffolk University Law Review, Vol. 25 (1991), pg. 999. {4} The Riddle of 'Man-Manly' Love, by Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, trans. by Michael Lombardi-Nash, 1994, pg. 540. (Originally published 1864-1879.) {5} "Civil Rites: Arguments Against Same-sex Marriage Mirror Those that Kept Races Apart," by Deb Price, in Detroit News, April 18, 1997. {6} Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con, edited by Andrew Sullivan, Vintage, 1997, pg. xx1. {7} The Case for Same-Sex Marriage, by William Eskridge, Free Press, 1996, pg. 110. {8} "Unspeakable Unions? -- The Flimsy Case Against Gay Marriage," by Stephen Chapman, in The Chicago Tribune, January 25, 1996. {9} "Creation and Natural Law," by Jeffrey John, in Sullivan, pg. 78. {10} "Heterosexual Relationships Don't Last Either," (Letter to the Editor), by David Paquette, in Atascadero News, February 18, 1996. ----------------------------------------------------- The Forum on the Right to Marriage (FORM) Box 8033 JFK Station Boston, MA 02114 (617) 868-FORM FORMNATL@aol.com HTTP://www.calico-company.com/formboston America Online: Keyword: GLCF Library. New Files -or- Legal Issues -or- Organizations Materials available: Arguments/Letters to the Editor Flier (new) * General Quotations Hawaii Primer How You Can Help Ithaca Primer Law Chart Law Review Summary Legal History Legal Summary Marriage Primer Press Kit * Resources Timeline Wedding Announcements *available soon ############################## FORM is a national grassroots organization primarily engaged in education and outreach concerning the issue of same-sex marriage. FORM provides resources and training to similar locally based groups throughout country. FORM exists as well to facilitate and support the efforts of individuals, whether legal or legislative, that advance the cause of same-sex marriage in the United States. When feasible, FORM will work in concert with gay and lesbian political groups to optimize organized efforts to attain same-sex marriage rights. ########################################## --------(Please print out, cut here, and mailback)----------- Please help us to begin building the framework for legalizing same-sex marriage. _ Yes, I want to be a member of FORM. Please enter my membership at the following level: _ Individual ($20.) _ Household ($30.) _ Student/Low-income ($10.) _ I want to make an additional contribution in the amount of: $ _____ (Please make checks payable to: Forum on the Right to Marriage (FORM), Inc.) _ Add me to your mailing list: __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ _ I'm interested in becoming a FORM organizer/starting a chapter in my area. We hope that you will become involved in FORM. But the most important thing, in whatever aspect of gay rights we may be involved in, is that we as gay people share with those around us the truth of our lives. FORM's activities can serve only as an adjunct to individual gay men, women, and young people willing to reach out and change the hearts and minds of the American people. Thanks for your interest and your continued assistance in helping to make marriage a reality for the gay community. Please mail to: The Forum on the Right to Marriage (FORM) Box 8033 JFK Station Boston, MA 02114