Last week, The Daily Pennsylvanian published an inside look at the lives of undergrad married couples ... who they are, how they live, why they chose marriage when they chose it. And with all the talk about the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage and presidential candidates trying to position themselves for maximum political benefit, I had to wonder: if you're a gay man or a lesbian woman, how do you cope with the idea that forces much larger than you (and your partner) define your choices?
As a friend and family member to multiple gay couples, I find myself often offended on their behalf. But I know that empathy is not the same. No matter how sincere, it can't replace the lived experience of life-limiting prejudice.
We've finally gotten around (well, at least some have) to the idea that basic civil rights for gay Americans should include civil unions; five states have passed legislation to that effect. But there are many people (regrettably, too many are political candidates) who want to couch this issue in other terms, filled with disingenuousness. Particularly galling are the "liberal" Democrats -- aka Kerry, Dean, Edwards and others -- who say that marriage is a religious term.
I am mystified as to why they think that is the basis for a sufficient response. If there are churches (and there are) that are willing to marry gay couples, then one can only infer from their position that marriage can only be conferred by certain religions ... which, last time I looked, was a violation of the Constitution, a document that's getting bandied about in virtually every discussion on this subject.
One thing is clear: The Democratic candidates are not going to let a "little issue" like the rights of gay people to wed get between them and improved polling numbers. And the denial of these basic civil rights makes it hard to listen to them expound on truth, justice and the American way, as they rail against special interests and accuse the Republicans of lying about everything since Eve bit the apple.
Now, I know that all the Democratic candidates have been advised that they have to start talking about religion in a way that makes them seem less "secular." They have to convince the large population of churchgoing Americans that they are "OK" with God and that a vote for a Democrat is not a vote for atheistic or agnostic humanism. So, maybe they thought that drawing a line on gay marriage and using religion as a reason would be a big enough media hook to move the God-fearing public toward them when it comes time to pull the lever on Election Day. But there's only one thing that churchgoers dislike more than unbelievers. That's an unbeliever pretending to be a believer. That's heresy.
There are many good reasons for gay marriage. One of them is children. Lesbian couples who choose artificial insemination, bear children as a couple and then split up are headed for stormy seas unless they manage to achieve the most (dare I say it?) "civil" of partings. And their kids are cast adrift, since neither case law nor legislation has knit a tight enough safety net to keep them from getting sucked under the swells of social upheaval. What about gay men who raise children from previous marriages together and later "uncouple"? What happens to their kids, who have been raised by two parents, and have siblings? Who will ensure that these kids get a fair shake?
The state has a compelling interest in children. And that interest has found expression in multiple venues: family court, extensive meetings with judges to make best interest judgments for the children of parents parting company. The state decides who gets custody, who pays child support, who gets what weekends and holidays and who pays for the orthodontics.
But who asks these questions when gay couples split up? Who cares? What are the rules? Who will enforce them? These children have constitutional rights to equal protection under the law. Unless gay and lesbian couples can marry, their children, biological and sociological, fall outside the usual protections assigned to children who now face a broken home.
On balance, I find the liberal "civil union, yes; marriage, no" crowd more offensive than the "no marriage for gays" crowd. At least the "no marriage for gays" crowd is honest. Wrong, but honest. But the "civil union, yes; marriage, no" crowd are the philosophical hair-splitters, the parsers of social context, who adopt a discriminatory position under the guise of diplomacy. They "damn with faint praise" the notions of gay couplehood. In doing so, they marginalize a group of Americans who work hard, live productive lives, pay taxes, buy homes, raise kids, contribute to their community, attend churches and synagogues and deserve -- yes, deserve -- to be treated with respect.
Gay and lesbian couples have declared their independence as citizens of this country. They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To those who would trivialize their rights (are you listening, Sen. Kerry and company?), here's a thought: Take it up with God.
Donna Gentile O’Donnell is a Ph.D. candidate in health policy history from Philadelphia, Pa. vox populi... will appear on alternate fridays.
