Guest Blogger

Marriage Equality: A Cause and Conversation That Won't (and Shouldn't) Stop

Filed By Guest Blogger | September 13, 2007 10:40 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, The Movement, The Movement
Tags: Evan Wolfson, LGBT civil rights, marriage

[EDITOR'S NOTE:] The following guest post comes to us from Evan Wolfson. Evan is Executive Director of Freedom to Marry, the gay and non-gay partnership working to win marriage equality nationwide. Before founding Freedom to Marry, Evan served as marriage project director for Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, was co-counsel in the historic Hawaii marriage case, and participated in numerous gay rights and HIV/AIDS cases. Citing his national leadership on marriage equality and his appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale, the National Law Journal in 2000 named Evan one of "the 100 most influential lawyers in America." In 2004, Evan was named one of the "Time 100," Time magazine's list of "the 100 most influential people in the world."

evan.jpgIn the last several weeks, there were a few strong reminders that discussion about ending gay people's exclusion from marriage will not just disappear. Just last week, the California legislature passed a bill for the second time, picking up votes, to remove the different-sex restriction on couples seeking to marry. Right before Labor Day, in a valentine from the heartland, a trial court judge found no legitimate government purpose in denying same-sex couples marriage, and struck the exclusion down - in Iowa.

With a Republican audience actually booing a candidate's anti-gay position when the marriage question came up in a party debate in New Hampshire, and a marriage case coming out right in Iowa, the epicenters of presidential politics are providing further evidence that people want to see the candidates address this civil rights question with authenticity, coherence, and principle.

As the Harkin Steak Fry approaches this weekend on September 16th with most of the Democratic presidential candidates scheduled to attend, and as even Republican candidates earn rebukes for their knee-jerk criticisms of a respected Iowa judge doing his job, those of us not running for president should help candidates get better by talking about why marriage matters and who gay families are, thereby creating space for them to rise to fairness. Wishing that others would just shut up is not a strategy; it's denial. Trust me; I know.

In order to assist candidates and those working with them, Freedom to Marry has just released the Candidates' Guide on How to Support Marriage Equality and Get Elected.

The Guide states:

"No candidate for office will be able to ignore the national conversation about fairness for all families. Candidates who understandably want to spend more time talking about other weighty campaign concerns ought to explain simply and definitively that they are for equality in marriage because marriage matters and equality is right for all Americans. Most people will respect their position and a personal story even if they do not fully agree, and candidates can move on to the questions that will determine most people's vote."

The highly readable, solid, and persuasive decision by Judge Hanson in the Iowa case brought by Lambda Legal offers a very clear picture of why marriage matters. The reactions of Iowans underscored that ending marriage discrimination is first and foremost about real people, and real love; one of the first people to register for a marriage license, David Rethmeier, said, "I started to cry because we so badly want to be able to be protected if something happens to one of us."

Marriage is a precious right

Judge Hanson held:

Both the Iowa Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have recognized that the right to marry is a fundamental right...[P]rotections "should not ultimately hinge upon whether the right sought to be recognized has been historically afforded. Our constitution is not merely tied to tradition, but recognizes the changing nature of society." Iowa Courts have generally been at the forefront in preserving the civil rights of their citizens in areas such as race, gender and sexual orientation.

Denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry harms families

Attempting to enumerate the myriad tangible and intangible harms same-sex couples and their families experience when denied marriage, the decision devotes six pages to describing 22 specific injuries same-sex couples experience every day: in child care and custody issues, inheritance, health care, property rights, and numerous daily events and exchanges that are affected by marriage or its absence.

The word 'marriage' itself is crucially important

As Pride Source pointed out,

The institution of marriage, Hanson wrote, is "so woven into the fabric of daily life and so determinative of legal rights and status" that denial of a marriage license "amounts to a badge of inferiority" imposed on gay couples and their children.

We are more than a year away from election 2008. As courts continue to rule, legislatures vote, and people who care about equality speak up and take action, our representatives looking for support in the presidential election must answer, not evade. Those who favor fairness and are busy now counseling or working for candidates should spend the next 14 months helping change happen, rather than arguing with the likes of me about why it can't.


Recent Entries Filed under The Movement:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Good post, Evan.

If people want more info on the difference between civil unions and marriage, they can read Don's series of posts on the subject, but especially this one here.

Marriage ties in with all of the rights and privileges that we, as a community - a people, are lacking. The double standard that America uses to judge the LGBT community is staggering. We're whores for not getting settling down in monogamous married relationships like Leave it to Beaver when not only are straight people not doing that anymore, but we don't even have that as an option in most states. It reminds me of the case in Pennsylvania that Lee Carpenter guest blogged about - the lesbian from Pennsylvania that was denied unemployment even though under state law she couldn't get married.

Tired of his bull | September 14, 2007 2:09 PM

[EDITOR'S NOTE:] This comment has been deleted for violating terms of service.

Thanks for joining the discussion at The Bilerico Project! Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, uses excessive foul language, is exceptionally incoherent, includes a homophobic, racist, sexist or other slur or is soliciting and/or advertising.

Personally, I find it very hard to swallow this guy's seeming contention that marriage is the most important issue when GLBT's are still denied basic civil rights in employment, housing, and equal distribution of basic social services in most of this country.

Indeed, it is those who drink the Koolaid Wolfson's selling who harm our community's advocacy efforts the most by insisting that pols who have little or no influence in making policy on marriage continually discuss the issue to little or no avail, ignoring more pressing and attainable goals.

Like the Human Rights Campaign, Evan Wolfson tries to sell our community an agenda that not only isn't in our best interests, but has now resulted in the banning of even the possibility of being extended those rights in 80% of American states.

How much longer do we allow this foolishness to go on unabated before we start doing some damage control and start focusing what actually can be achieved rather than this harmful and completely unrealistic fantasy of federally-sanctioned marriage rights?

When do we start living in the present instead of the future? When will those who like to preach and pontificate the values of incrementalism to the gender-variant actually start practicing it themselves?