Equality Means Equality for Everyone

There’s been a lot of news lately about the possible repeal of DOMA, and promoting marriage equality for everyone. I’m just going to touch a little on my thoughts about this tonight before leaving you with a paper I wrote back in 2010. Yeah, it is a few years old but the points I make are still just as valid now as they were back in 2010.

When I look at what is happening for marriage equality, how many states have passed agendas supporting marriage equality it’s hard for me not to wipe tears of joy from my eyes. Being a transman, eventually I would be able to get married to my fiancé (who is female) without too many problems, but for many couples out there without marriage equality, that would never happen.  Our brothers and sisters would be denied equal rights and protections under the law merely because their sexual preference is not considered the “norm” in the United States, or even the world.

We still have a long way to go, especially in states like the one I’m living in right now, Arkansas. It is my hope though, that people will continue to wake up, and realize that discriminating against someone FOR ANY REASON, is wrong and hurts our society.  I don’t want to get into a rant about discrimination tonight though; I’ll save that for later.

Cause and Effect: The Ban on Gay Marriage

The ban on same sex marriage not only hurts our society by preventing families in the GBLTQ (Gay, Bi-sexual, Lesbian, Transgender, and Queer)  community from caring for one another as any heterosexual family does, but also pardons discrimination against homosexuals. Gay and lesbian couples rarely have family insurance plans which would help with the care of the spouses, and children if they were present; and in most cases find it extremely difficult to receive any kind of joint governmental resources or assistance based on family units. This is mostly due to the ban on same sex marriage and the laws set into place that openly discriminate against the homosexual community. If we, as a country continue to refuse couples the right to marry based on sexual preference we are disregarding equal rights and forgiving our government for singling out a minority of our citizens.

In 1993 the freedom to marry movement was set into action by the monumental decision of the Hawaiian courts that stated that putting restrictions on who a person can marry is considered as discrimination.  In 1996 The United States Congress went so far as to condone discrimination against members of the GBLTQ community as to pass the Defense of Marriage Act, which states:

‘No state, territory or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state, territory, possession or tribe respecting persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under laws of such other state, territory, possession, or tribe or a right or claim arising from such relationship.’ (Bill Text - 104th Congress (1995-1996) - THOMAS (Library of Congress))

This law placed the right to allow or deny same sex couples the fundamental freedom of marriage in the courts of the individual states.  Not only does the Defense of Marriage Act legally excuse the discrimination of same sex couples by allowing states to put into place bans against the marriage of like genders, but also nullifies the Full Faith and Credit Clause established in Article IV Section I and II of the United States Constitution: Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceeding of every other state; And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. (Article IV|LII Legal Information Institute).

Several years later in 1999 after the state amended its constitution the Hawaiian courts ruled that the state no longer protected lesbian and gay individual’s rights to marry. Since that ruling, members of the GBLTQ community and their allies have been fighting for equality in regards to the right to marry.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment). The 14^th amendment passed on July 9, 1868 assures the citizens of the United States that laws will not be put into effect that alter or restrict an individual’s rights.

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law,” these are the words Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in his decision during the 1967 Supreme Court case, Loving vs. Virginia, that ruled bans on interracial marriage were a violation of the United States Constitution (Loving vs. Virginia). If denying citizens the right to marry based on race is deemed unconstitutional, than why isn’t then denial of marriage based on sexual preference the same?

Jonathan Rauch, a correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, and a senior writer and columnist for the National Journal, wrote on marriage in his 2004 book Gay Marriage: Why it is good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America:

“Marriage is not merely a contract between two people. It is a contract between two people and their community. When two people approach the altar or the bench to marry, they approach not only the presiding official but all of society. They enter into a compact not just with each other but with the world, and that compact says: “We, the two of us, pledge to make a home together, care for one another, and, perhaps, raise children together (Rauch, Gay Marriage).”

Whether socio-cultural or religious based, the arguments mounting against gay marriage never give a plausible reason for the ban without violating amendments to the constitution. In addition to disregarding Constitutional Amendments, the political leaders are casting aside the ideals that the founding fathers of the United States set forth when the country was first created in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (Declaration of Independence - Transcript).

Procreation and the continuance of the human race is a common argument against the marriage of lesbian and gay couples. The fact that this argument is completely irrational is evident in the amount of heterosexual couples that either, cannot reproduce, due to genetic malformations or medical procedures that inhibit reproduction, or have chosen not to and yet are still permitted to marry.

 Also anyone of legal age can purchase contraceptives from drugstores nation-wide, and in some cases even the ‘morning after pill’ both of which greatly reduce the chance of conception. Abortion, a process in which a pregnant woman can abort an unborn fetus during the first and second trimesters of pregnancy, is also legal in all 50 states; this process as well denies procreation.

Fundamentalist have even gone as far as saying same sex couples should not be allowed the basic right of marriage because it (heterosexual marriage) is essential for raising children in today’s society, yet there are only five states that openly have bans on homosexual individuals from adopting (Judith E. Beckett).  Of the children adopted in the United States, 65,500 live with lesbian or gay parents.  As of 2005, an estimated 270,313 of the United States children were living in households with same sex partners as the head of household (The Williams Institute - UCLA School of Law).

 “Too many single-parent families, as many studies have shown, bring up kids who as adults do markedly less well on average in school, career, and marriage than those who grew up in intact two-parent families. As for children of never-married mothers: many of them make up the permanent underclass, and their high rates of crime, school failure, and welfare dependency are everything that the Founders expected the republican family to prevent,” said Kay Hymowitz in her 2004 article in the City Journal (Hymowitz).

 “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (First Amendment - US Constitution). It was this first amendment, the beginning of the Bill of Rights in the constitution that gave the people the right to choose a religion of preference, as well as the absence of religion. The arguments supporting the ban on the marriage of lesbian and gay couples with religious biases are in clear violation of this amendment. While one may not agree with homosexuality due to religious reasons, this does not give them the right to discriminate against others, denying a minority of the United States citizens the right to marry on such a trivial basis as sexual preference.

While legislations have crossed several states allowing the right of civil unions to same sex couples, it is still sending the message the homosexuals citizens are ‘equal’ but separate, an issue among the African American community that led to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Marriage, rather than civil union, among homosexual couples will only afford the couple the same assistance in providing for each other that married heterosexual couples already have.

“In exchange for the care-giving commitment we are making, you, our community, will recognize us not only as individuals but as a bonded pair, a family, granting us a special autonomy and a special status which only marriage conveys. We, the couple, will support one another. You, society, will support us. You expect us to be there for each other and will help us meet those expectations. We will do our best, until death do us part (Rauch, Gay Marriage).”

The United States government was founded on the ideals that every man is equal, yet every minority in this country; whether based on race, origins, or sexual preference, have to fight for equality.  America was made to be the land of the free and home of the brave, however will remain in the chains of discrimination until we can put our differences aside and realize we are all human beings.

Works Cited

 "Article IV|LII Legal Information Institute." Cornell University Law School. 18 November 2010 <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv>.

"Bill Text - 104th Congress (1995-1996) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)." 1996. The Library of Congress - THOMAS. 18 November 2010 <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.3396.ENR:>.

"Declaration of Independence - Transcript." The National Archives. 26 November 2010 <http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html>.

"First Amendment - US Constitution." FindLaw.com. 27 September 2010 

<http://public.findlaw.com/constitution-day/first-amendment-us-constitution.html>.

Hymowitz, Kay S. "Gay Marriage vs. American Marriage." City Journal (2004).

Judith E. Beckett, R.N. The Rainbow Babies: Adoption Choices for Lesbian & Gay Couples. 23 May 2007. 01 December 2010 <http://www.therainbowbabies.com/AdoptionChoices.html>.

Loving vs. Virginia. The US Supreme Court. April- June 1967.

Rauch, Jonathan. Gay Marriage. New York: Times Books Henry Holt and Company, 2004.

—. Gay Marriage. n.d.

The Williams Institute - UCLA School of Law. Census Snapshot - The United States. Los Angeles: UCLA, 2007.

"U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment." FindLaw.com. <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14>.