Why the battle for gay marriage was won so easily - The Washgton Post

Contents:

• GAY MARRIAGE
• GAY MARRIAGE: THEOLOGIL AND MORAL ARGUMENTS
• WHY THE BATTLE FOR GAY MARRIAGE WAS WON SO EASILY
• SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL?
• TWO PERSPECTIV ON GAY MARRIAGE
• GAY MARRIAGE: PROS, CONS, AND WHERE BOTH PARTI STAND
• CHANGG PERSPECTIV ON GAY MARRIAGE

GAY MARRIAGE

The vast majory of scientific studi that have directly pared lbian and gay parents wh heterosexual parents have nsistently shown that the same-sex upl are as f and pable parents as heterosexual upl, and that their children are jt as psychologilly healthy and well adjted.

Scholars and the general public beme creasgly terted the issue durg the late 20th century, a perd when attus toward homosexualy and laws regulatg homosexual behavur were liberalized, particularly wtern Europe and the Uned issue of same-sex marriage equently sparked emotnal and polil clash between supporters and opponents. Relig and secular expectatns of marriage and sexualy Over time the historil and tradnal cultur origally rerd by the lik of Bachofen and Man slowly succumbed to the homogenizatn imposed by lonialism. In other s, the cultural homogeney supported by the domant relign did not rult the applitn of doctre to the civic realm but may nohels have fostered a smoother seri of discsns among the cizenry: Belgium and Spa had legalized same-sex marriage, for stance, spe official opposn om their predomant relig stutn, the Roman Catholic Church.

Most of the world religns have at some pots their histori opposed same-sex marriage for one or more of the followg stated reasons: homosexual acts vlate natural law or dive tentns and are therefore immoral; passag sacred texts nmn homosexual acts; and relig tradn regniz only the marriage of one man and one woman as valid.

GAY MARRIAGE: THEOLOGIL AND MORAL ARGUMENTS

Early Years: Same-Sex Marriage Bans In 1970, jt one year after the historic Stonewall Rts that galvanized the gay rights movement, law stunt Richard Baker and librarian Jam McConnell applied for a marriage license Gerald Nelson rejected their applitn bee they were a same-sex uple, and a trial urt upheld his cisn. ” This lg effectively blocked feral urts om lg on same-sex marriage for s, leavg the cisn solely the hands of stat, which alt blow after blow to those hopg to see gay marriage beg 1973, for stance, Maryland beme the first state to create a law that explicly f marriage as a unn between a man and woman, a belief held by many nservative relig groups.

Though the gay rights movement saw some advancements the 1970s and 1980s—such as Harvey Milk beg the first openly gay man elected to public office the untry 1977—the fight for gay marriage ma ltle headway for many years.

In 1989, the San Francis Board of Supervisors passed an ordance that allowed homosexual upl and unmarried heterosexual upl to register for domtic partnerships, which granted hospal visatn rights and other years later, the District of Columbia siarly passed a new law that allowed same-sex upl to register as domtic partners.

WHY THE BATTLE FOR GAY MARRIAGE WAS WON SO EASILY

C., 1993, the hight urt Hawaii led that a ban on same-sex marriage may vlate that state nstutn’s Equal Protectn Clse—the first time a state urt has ever ched toward makg gay marriage Hawaii Supreme Court sent the se—brought by a gay male uple and two lbian upl who were nied marriage licens 1990—back for further review to the lower First Circu Court, which 1991 origally dismissed the the state tried to prove that there was “pellg state tert” jtifyg the ban, the se would be tied up ligatn for the next three Defense of Marriage Act Opponents of gay marriage, however, did not s on their hnch. Congrs 1996 passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which Print Bill Clton signed to didn’t ban gay marriage outright but specified that only heterosexual upl uld be granted feral marriage benefs.

That is, even if a state ma gay marriage legal, same-sex upl still wouldn’t be able to file e tax jotly, sponsor spo for immigratn benefs or receive spoal Social Secury payments, among many other act was a huge setback for the marriage equaly movement, but transient good news arose three months later: Hawaii Judge Kev S. Phg for Change: Civil Unns The next saw a whirlwd of activy on the gay marriage ont, begng wh the year 2000 when Vermont beme the first state to legalize civil unns, a legal stat that provis most of the state-level benefs of years later, Massachetts beme the first state to legalize gay marriage when the Massachetts Supreme Court led that same-sex upl had the right to marry Goodridge v.

SHOULD GAY MARRIAGE BE LEGAL?

Kansas and Texas were next 2005, and 2006 saw seven more stat passg Constutnal amendments agast gay towards the end of the , gay marriage beme legal var stat, cludg Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont (the first state to approve by legislative means) and New Hampshire.

TWO PERSPECTIV ON GAY MARRIAGE

Domtic Partnerships Throughout the and the begng of the next, California equently ma headl for seawg on the gay marriage state was the first to pass a domtic partnership statute 1999, and legislators tried to pass a same-sex marriage bill 2005 and 2007. For the first time the untry’s history, voters (rather than judg or legislators) Mae, Maryland, and Washgton approved Constutnal amendments permtg same-sex marriage marriage also beme a feral issue 2010, Massachetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, found Sectn 3 of DOMA—the part of the 1996 law that fed marriage as a unn between one man and one woman—to be unnstutnal.

Wdsor, nservative Jtice Anthony Kennedy sid wh Jtic Ruth Bar Gsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan favor of same-sex marriage rights, ultimately makg gay marriage legal across the natn June this time, was still outlawed only 13 stat, and more than 20 other untri had already legalized gay marriage, startg wh the Netherlands December 2000. What has grown is a much greater acceptance of gays and lbians our culture, as well as the social and enomic eedom for gays and lbians to emerge om the closet that has nfed them for so many generatns. The recent addn of same sex mment ceremoni the Sunday New York Tim weddg and engagement announcements and the populary of shows as "Will and Grace" and "Queer Eye…" dite a shift our culture's attu toward gays and lbians.

GAY MARRIAGE: PROS, CONS, AND WHERE BOTH PARTI STAND

My purpose today is not to support or fend gay and lbian marriag—ed, many gays and lbians do not want to marry—but simply suggt a theologil approach that might open up the possibily for greater Christian acceptance of, and eccliastil approval for, same sex unns. Catholic sistence: one n uphold the digny of homosexual people while not upholdg their right-to-marry; no unjt discrimatn towards homosexuals is acceptable; they mt be treated wh rpect, and their rights fend. What if the fg gay rights mand of the past generatn had not been equal marriage rights but an affirmative-actn program for employment areas — say, the feral ernment — where gay men and lbians had suffered historic discrimatn?

Even as nservativ fight for relig-liberty exemptns om the new norms around same-sex marriage, such as those the Supreme Court is nsirg a challenge om a Catholic social-servic agency that ref to place foster children gay fai, they’ve effectively nced feat the broar war over the earlier civil rights projects to which the qut for marriage equaly was often pared — notably, for women’s sufage and racial segregatn — not only took much longer to reach their goals but also appeared to leave a ridue of unrolved nflict even after the nstutnal issu were settled. In the sprg of 1996, Whe Hoe talkg pots on the topic — which Print Bill Clton personally approved — argued that the print “do not believe is appropriate for srce feral rourc to be voted to providg spoal benefs to partners gay and lbian relatnships. In pretrial statements, the state attorney general’s office dned a range of potential ratnal: that Hawaii thori had an tert ensurg that the state’s legal relatnships were regnized other jurisdictns; that the state had an tert furtherg procreatn wh marriage; that heterosexual marriag were better for children; that the islands’ tourist enomy uld suffer if Hawaii beme Lake Tahoe for gay and lbian none of the ratnal managed to persua judg — eher Hawaii or subsequent succsful challeng to marriage laws Vermont, Massachetts, Connecticut, California and Iowa.

” But afterward, even the most cynil observers of events Massachetts and the stat that followed s lead uld not pot to any societal y that gay marriage both the legal and polil spher, opponents were forced to shrk the circle of those expected to feel direct harm om lettg gay men and lbians marry.

CHANGG PERSPECTIV ON GAY MARRIAGE

Even if simple exposure to gay fai ed harm to children (and gay-marriage opponents uld never mter anythg beyond njecture to support that claim), they did not brg much to the fight agast same-sex marriage as voters, donors or the same time, the aln of those vted legalizg same-sex marriage not only broaned, but their vtment the oute epened. This clud not jt gay upl who wanted to marry — drawn to the unique material benefs and symbolic power the stutn offered — but their fai and muni who saw marriage as a source of stabily, and even employers who wanted to synchronize their benefs wh the law and standardize them across state l. Bakke, which upheld affirmative-actn was an accint of history, talyzed by lol events Hawaii, that marriage equaly rose to the top of the gay rights agenda at the start of this century.