GUEST COLUMNIST: Striving for same-sex marriages

Joseph Cruz Joseph CruzLook in that gargantuan reference the Oxford English Dictionary, and the definition of marriage may come as a surprise: "The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between married persons; spousehood, wedlock." Within this context, one can easily include same-gender marriages. And if the OED permits them, then one would think they would be allowed across the board. With a court challenge, Baehr v. Miike, likely to end this discrimination pending a hearing before the Hawaii Supreme Court, anti-gay organizations are mounting a state-by-state backlash campaign aimed at thwarting legal recognition of the lawful civil marriages that same-gender couples hope to celebrate some day. In 1996, they tried to pressure 37 state legislatures into passing anti-marriage bills; most refused. Since then, of the 32 state anti-marriage proposals, nine have been adopted, 14 have been blocked and nine are pending. Nationwide, only five pro-marriage bills have been proposed. Over the years, the laws governing civil marriage (as distinguished from religious marriage, which is appropriately left to each denomination) have evolved. We increasingly recognize that each individual should have the right to marry the person she or he loves and cares for, regardless of race, class, religion and the like. This has not always been the case; 30 years ago, loving relationships between two adults of different races were deemed "immoral" or "unnatural" and at one point were completely illegal. Consider this: South Dakota's anti-gay marriage bill reads, "Marriage between persons of the same gender is null and void from the beginning" (S.D. House Bill 1184). It bears a disturbing resemblance to a Virginia law that reads "All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process" (Va. Code Ann. @ 20-57). In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned race restrictions on marriage in 16 states (Loving v. Virginia). The parallels are uncanny. As lesbian and gay couples around the country demand their equal right to marry, one should not forget that the same arguments used against same-gender marriages were used, not so long ago, against those who wished to marry a person of a different race. The freedom to marry, the right to a civil marriage license from the state and the choice of whom to marry should belong to each man and each woman, not the government. Marriage is something very special. It is a powerful legal and social idea that protects and supports intimate family relationships by providing a unique set of rights, privileges and benefits. Those who can marry often take these rights for granted. But because gay men and lesbians cannot marry their boyfriends or girlfriends, they are denied insurance licenses and coverage. They are forbidden income tax deductions, credits, rate exemptions and estimates. They are withheld proof of business partnership, public assistance from state or federal Human Services, the right to inherit property, natural disaster tax relief and, eventually, the right to decide how to bury their loved ones or to visit them if they are in the hospital. In effect, the government is telling us that there are first-class, approved marriages and second-class, disapproved ones. Thirty years ago, interracial marriages were illegal. Today, they are commonplace, but nonetheless very special. Today, same-gender marriages are illegal. Perhaps, soon, they will be commonplace and nonetheless very special. Today has been declared "National Freedom to Marry Day." Please join in celebrating the strides already achieved towards the goal of marriage freedom for all, as well as in protest of the government's inaction in that regard.