Marriage Is Love

Below is the text of President-Elect Obama’s response to a question from the Human Rights Campaign regarding same-sex marriage. The questionnaire in its entirety with Obama’s answers is available at www.barackobama.com.

I believe civil unions should include the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license. I support the notion that all people – gay or straight – deserve the same rights and responsibilities to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples, and deserve the same property rights as anyone else.

However, I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state’s ability to decide this question on its own. Whether it was a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or a bill like the Defense of Marriage Act, I would oppose such efforts. I think the President should do all he or she can to advance strong families. Whatever the make-up of the family, it is the President’s role to provide policies and leadership that enable the family to thrive.

Now, here is an altered version of the same text. I have changed some of the original words to illustrate a point.

I believe civil unions should include the same legal rights that accompany a marriage license. I support the notion that all couples – interracial or not – deserve the same rights and responsibilities to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to traditional married couples, and deserve the same property rights as anyone else.

However, I do not support interracial marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between two people of the same race. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state’s ability to decide this question on its own. Whether it was a Constitutional amendment banning interracial marriage or a bill like the Defense of White Marriage Act, I would oppose such efforts. I think the President should do all he or she can to advance strong families. Whatever the make-up of the family, it is the President’s role to provide policies and leadership that enable the family to thrive.

The altered version would sound pretty preposterous coming from the child of an interracial marriage. Of course, it's pretty preposterous on its own. But laws against interracial marriage were still in place in several states as recently as 1967.

Granted, it is entirely possible that Obama's lack of support for legal same-sex marriage is at least partially due to the current political climate. Vocally supporting gay marriage would most likely have hurt Obama's chances for election. The wording in his response to the HRC's question about same-sex marriage was likely purposefully mitigating, in order to appeal to both sides of the issue. Appealing to both sides of an issue is what politicians do best.

According to the questionnaire, Obama would oppose legislation that would eliminate states' rights to decide on their own whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. His personal, religiously-motivated belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he is in favor of granting same-sex couples a separate-but-equal institution that would give them the same legal rights as marriage—just don't call it marriage, 'cause that word is sacred. He supports strong families, but some families have to stand in one line, and other families get to stand in the other line (the one that everyone wants to stand in).

Making comparisons between the struggle for gay rights and the struggle for civil rights for black Americans is dangerous territory, of course, because the iniquities committed against blacks in this country have been, overall, much more egregious and pervasive. However, civil marriage is a civil right, and it's not the same thing as religious marriage. No religion will ever be forced to perform marriages that it believes are wrong. But if straight people have the right to civil marriages, then gay people ought to have the right to them, too. Otherwise, we should get rid of the term "marriage" in terms of government-recognized unions altogether and have everyone stand in the line for a civil union license.

Religious marriage of same-sex couples can be and is performed by religious denominations that support it. The government has granted pastors, priests, rabbis, etc. the right to create a civil marriage at the same time that they create a religious marriage. However, religious leaders who would like to create a civil same-sex marriage at the same time as the religious one are unable to do so. Conservative religious beliefs dictate government policy on this issue. That seems a little like the establishment of a state religion. Thus, same-sex marriage can be viewed as a freedom of religion issue as well as a civil rights issue. How can we pass a Constitutional amendment that eliminates a First Amendment right without also repealing the First Amendment?

Not every church is going to sanction same-sex marriage, and not everyone wants a church-sanctioned marriage, anyway. Not everyone even wants to be married. The right in question is the right to civil marriage for those couples who desire it. Same-sex couples should have the same civil rights as opposite-sex couples. That means either a) giving same-sex couples the right to legally marry, or b) eliminating the word "marriage" from legal licenses and giving all couples the right to civil unions that are legally equivalent to today's civil marriages.

A lot of the argument on this issue is over semantics. Religious conservatives believe that the word "marriage" is sacred and they don't want to change the traditional definition to include same-sex unions. Committed, loving same-sex couples want to call their unions "marriages" and have those marriages be recognized by the law. Civil unions that confer the same legal rights as civil marriages are a step in the right direction. But ultimately, the government ought to pick one term and use it for all legally-recognized committed unions. Using two different terms for two different groups of people perpetuates inequality.

Separate is not equal.

The author invites her readers to join her at the St. Louis protest against California’s Proposition 8 this Saturday, November 15 at 12 noon downtown at the Old Courthouse. More information about the protest can be found at www.showmenohate.blogspot.com. Information on simultaneous protests in other cities nationwide is available at www.jointheimpact.wetpaint.com.