Comment on this story

by Barry Henderson

Whether to allow couples of the same sex to marry or to enter into civil unions that protect their rights and privileges as if they were married has become a global issue. The debate is going on all around the world, and it’s not one that’s easily resolved, emotions and religions being involved at every turn.

In Tennessee, where a state statute already defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, arguments have been rumbling for the last couple of years over the possibility of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage outright. The double-jeopardy nature of such a proposed measure illustrates how irrational the opposition to gay lifestyles is.

Yet in a debate among candidates for state Senate seats in and around Knoxville this week, four different approaches to the question were taken. One candidate advocated marriage as an institution that should be preserved in its traditional form; another was opposed to gay marriage, but not civil unions between same-sex couples; a third was opposed to any constitutional change to prohibit such marriages, period; and a fourth abstained. Who said what is not so important, in that context, as how the responses showed how disparate the opinions are and how much thought seems to have been given to the idea.

That thought, however, is laden with emotion, with the products of religious teaching, and with the cloying appeal of tradition. If the controversy were reduced to its factual underpinnings, there would be no reason to oppose gay marriage. To stand against it would, in fact, run counter to our ideals of individual rights, personal privacy and freedom of choice.

The struggle to reconcile equal rights and protections for all with those irrational, emotional responses is akin to other civil rights struggles. The conflict seems everlasting. Only the minority or disempowered class being discriminated against seems to change.

Women’s suffrage took forever to achieve. Since then, America has failed to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment, guaranteeing women all the same rights and considerations as men, although women are finally being viewed as first-class citizens.

A national majority is even slower to accept the rights of religious or racial minorities, though those rights are protected under the Constitution or by law. The right to one’s own sexual preference and its private practice is farther from majority acceptance, it would appear. But it is still a right and should be viewed as one. Establishing it unequivocally is another thing. Stuttering attempts in Massachusetts and California to secure marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples have had the effect of galvanizing the opposition to the certification of such arrangements. Legislation and amendments to state constitutions popped up in dozens of states with the intent to sanctify traditional marriages and effectively prohibit same-sex marriages.

We Americans are far from alone in our confusion over that charged issue. The European Union’s Parliament last fall recommended in its report on human rights in the EU that all member states allow gay couples to marry and adopt. Belgium and the Netherlands do permit gay marriages, but not all adoptions. Denmark was first to allow legal civil unions. France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Greenland and Iceland now permit such unions, but adoption rules vary. The issue is roiling around in other EU nations without a legal resolution. There is pending legislation in England that would allow civil unions there.

In Australia, a law bans same-sex marriages by defining Marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but some of its states recognize same-sex couples de facto, and the state of Tasmania has its own law permitting civil unions. Closer to home, Canada has laws allowing same-sex couples to marry, even if they aren’t Canadian citizens or residents. It’s the only country to take such an open legal stance on the subject.

Civil union vs. marriage is more than just a semantic distinction, but that is an important one where opposition arises from religious beliefs. The point of pursuing and advocating the right to marry is not religious. It is political, social and economic.

It is political because it’s a matter of civil law. It’s economic because recognition of a legal marriage or union brings with it hundreds of benefits, rights and entitlements that are not available to the single person. It’s social because legitimizing a couple’s living arrangement removes some of the stigma that attaches to their lifestyle.

The social part is the tough one to overcome, because it’s where the deep-seated prejudices reside. It’s a shame that those biases continue to override rational reactions to same-sex marriages, because in these United States, of all countries, the social cloth is not of a single thread or color or pattern. It’s more like a crazy quilt of plaids and stripes. And we profess to like that blend, even as we continue to try to reweave and dye it into something that looks the same from every angle.

We can’t do that, can’t succeed, and we wouldn’t like the product if we did. But some people are single-minded in their efforts to get their own set of beliefs and personal biases defined as the amalgam that emerges in the great American melting pot. Even if those who are stirring so vigorously are in the majority, they should be thwarted. Diversity is not just a catchword; it’s an ideal. Tolerance is just OK; acceptance of differences, including sexual preference differences, is the goal.

October 7, 2004 • Vol. 14, No. 41 © 2004 Metro Pulse