Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
When Californians cast their ballots for President-elect Barack Obama, they also voted on whether or not same-sex couples have the right to get married. By passing the referendum known as Proposition 8, they amended a section of their constitution to read, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
It is fundamentally wrong for a minority group to have its rights taken away by the whims of the majority. This issue needs to go to court, where it can be proven, simply and irrefutably, that there are no legal arguments which can validate the denial of marital rights to homosexual couples.
I have a personal stake in this as a lesbian and as a woman who hopes to one day get married. If Prop. 8 and its cousins had been struck down, and marital rights were extended to same-sex couples in the few states whose constitutions currently allow it, My future wife and I could get married in, say, Massachusetts or Connecticut, or even in Maine. If that happened, however, as soon as we crossed the border to Virginia – where a large number of my extended family lives and my parents, brothers and I spend our summers together – my marriage would disappear. Because in the United States we allow minority rights to be contested from state to state. My marriage, which should be the rock-solid foundation of my family’s emotional stability, will flicker in and out like bad cell phone service if we happen to cross state lines.
This is not an issue of “gay marriage.” There is no such thing, and those who propose new special unions for same-sex couples are creating an inferior institution. We will not stand to be treated as second-class citizens. There is only the right to be married and to gain all the legal benefits of that institution. Any religious institution which invests in campaigning against the extension of marriage rights to homosexuals ought to be taxed. The government does not and has never interfered with the ability of a religious institution to perform – or not perform – marriages. There is a vast difference between a legal marriage and a religious marriage. The confusion around the distinction between the two is understandable, since they usually coincide.
In my home state of New Jersey, same-sex couples can apply for civil unions, but most often they are joined in a religious ceremony and refer to the entire business as a wedding as if it was legally a marriage. The bottom line is “husband” and “wife” have such a better ring to them than “civil partner.”
If you do not agree with my “lifestyle” then you do not have to share in it. Homosexuals have in the past received a horrible rap for promiscuity and sexual irresponsibility. That is partly because our society blocks us from expressing ourselves sexually in healthy ways. Marriage is the grand-daddy of healthy and normative sexual expression. If we are granted the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals, the commonalities between us grow, and our society will become a more peaceful, healthy place.
Samantha Hansen is treasurer of the Wilde Stein Society for Sexual Diversity.
Bangor Daily News