Subject: *M-EDIT*: Pro-marriage op-ed
From: Martha Barnette <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 08:37:09 -0800

The largest newspaper in Kentucky, the Louisville *Courier-Journal*, today
published the following op-ed by me in response to that breathtakingly stupid
Cal Thomas column.  Yeeha.  The newspaper has statewide distribution as well
as in Southern Indiana.

Please feel free to distribute, reprint, clip, quote, crib, whatever.  And
thanks to everyone for the continued inspiration and information provided by
this list.

Letters to the Editor
Email:  [email-masked]
Fax:  (502) 582-4290

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAY MEN AND LESBIANS:  NO THREAT TO INSTITUTION OF CIVIL MARRIAGE
by Martha Barnette

Ms. Barnette is a Louisville freelance writer and former *Courier-Journal*
editorial writer. She is also co-chairwoman of the Louisville-based Fairness
Campaign's civil marriage team.

        Well, well.  So Circuit Court Judge Kevin Chang last week
ordered the state of Hawaii to issue civil marriage licenses to
same-gender couples.  A few hours later, at the request of the
state, the judge ordered a stay of that ruling pending appeal.
        Now quick, tell me:  During those hours when gay marriage was
technically legal in one state of the Union, did you hear a collective
CLUNK as wedding rings suddenly loosened and fell off the fingers of
married people nationwide?  Did your phone ring off the hook with
engaged couples calling to say they'd cancelled their wedding plans
because marriage had been "redefined"?  Were husbands and wives
everywhere smacking their foreheads and declaring, like the old
V-8 commercial, "Gee, I coulda had a gay marriage!" -- before
rushing out to file for divorce?
        Of course not.
        No, despite all the hand-wringing, doomsaying, and
downright silly scare tactics from the fanatical right, the reality
is that making the civil institution of marriage accessible to gay
and lesbian citizens won't hurt it in the least -- certainly no more
than any of the countless other changes civil marriage has undergone
through the centuries.
        Thank goodness, for example, that marriage laws have changed
since the days when a wife was legally her husband's property and
prohibited from owning property herself.  And let's hear it for the
Supreme Court decision that a mere 30 years ago struck down unjust
state laws restricting marriage to members of the same race. (At that
time, by the way, polls showed a majority of Americans opposed to
that decision.  Yet surely no sensible person would argue today that
making the civil institution of marriage accessible to interracial
couples caused its "breakdown.")
        On this page last week, columnist Cal Thomas denounced the
Hawaii ruling with fiery religious rhetoric, conveniently forgetting
that pesky little legal principle known as "separation of church and
state."  Maybe he was hoping people wouldn't realize the difference
between civil marriage, which is the business of the government, and
holy matrimony, which is the business of the church.  He apparently
also hoped no one would notice that if the government issued civil
marriage licenses to same-gender couples, no church would ever be
forced to bless such unions (even though many already do).
        Amazingly, Thomas admitted that his "greatest legal
argument" for discriminating against gay people is his highly
questionable notion that human beings "can and do change" something
as fundamental as their sexual orientation.  Are we to assume, then,
that Thomas himself could be gay if he only tried hard enough?  Would
 he also support discrimination against those with different
religious beliefs, because -- as many conservative Christians hope
to prove with their convert-the-Jews crusade -- people "can and do
change" their religion?
        Inexplicably, Thomas even went on to boast: "My files bulge
with stories of those who once engaged in sex with people of the
same gender, but no longer do."
        Well, I certainly can't say I've collected bulging files on
other people's sex lives.  But I do find it telling that for folks
like him, this debate inevitably boils down to a preoccupation with
what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
        Call me old-fashioned, but I always thought that this most
intimate aspect of a couple's life wasn't anyone else's business --
and certainly not the government's.  In fact, you'd think that of all
people, a die-hard conservative like Thomas would be the first to
oppose federal intervention in one of the most fundamental and
personal decisions that taxpaying, law-abiding adults can make:
the choice of whom to marry.
        Happily, the state of Hawaii didn't do any better than Cal
Thomas at coming up with a single compelling reason to deny civil
rights to same-gender couples, despite having three years to do so.
Lacking any other convincing arguments, the state tried to focus on
gay parenting -- only to see its strategy backfire when its own
experts admitted the overwhelming evidence indicates that not
only do gay people make good parents, but letting those couples
marry would benefit their children, who now number well into the
millions.
        Sure, the Hawaii case did a lot of things:  It demonstrated
that taxpaying, law-abiding citizens are routinely and unfairly
denied fundamental legal rights that would help them care for each
other and their families at some of the most difficult times in any
family's life -- in hospitals, funeral homes, courtrooms, immigration
offices, and on the job. It showed that policies of special rights
for heterosexuals amount to blatant discrimination by the government.
And it shattered myths and stereotypes about the reality of gay
people's lives.
        What the judge's ruling didn't do, however, was harm the
institution of marriage. (I also doubt that, as evangelist Pat
Robertson reportedly ranted the next day, this decision has left our
country newly vulnerable to attacks from "suitcase-sized nuclear
bombs" and "biological warfare".)
        In fact, if more Americans can take on the legal rights
and responsibilities of looking after each other for a lifetime --
if more of us have the chance to participate in the full rights of
citizenship -- then the institution of marriage, and our nation as
a whole, will surely be that much stronger for it.