Religion instead of equal rights?

Throughout the history of this nation, circumstances have arisen which have demonstrated to the public that problems existed within society that demanded our nation's attention and needed to be fixed. Examples of this are the abolition of slavery, granting women suffrage, and ending segregation. With the recent SJC ruling in Massachusetts and actions taken in San Francisco regarding gay marriage, such a situation has presented itself again. Unfortunately however, many people are trying to resist positive social change instead of embracing this opportunity to right a wrong in our legal system.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on Nov. 18, 2003, that the state's ban on same-sex marriages violated equal protection under the law, and is based on bigotry and prejudice. In the Court's opinion, Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall wrote, "The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals... It forbids the creation of second-class citizens." The Court gave the legislature 180 days to change state law to comply with the decision, but also noted that same-sex marriages would still become legal even if the legislature failed to act.

A heated debate has ensued, and there was even a failed attempt to create an amendment to the state constitution to prevent the Court's order from taking affect. Most recently, the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, by no means a liberal democrat, made headlines when he announced on Feb. 12 that San Francisco would start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In the statement issued by his office, the mayor said to the press, "Today a barrier to justice has been removed. A barrier removed for one person is a barrier removed for us all." The first couple to marry was a lesbian couple of 51 years, 83 year old Del Martin, and 79 year old Phyllis Lyon.

At issue here are two very straightforward concepts; equal rights, and the separation of church and state. First let's tackle equal rights. The legal code of this nation is founded on the concept of equal protection under the law, and a ban on gay marriage violates this central tenet. Homosexual couples are unable to enjoy the same inheritance rights, tax breaks, insurance benefits, and hospital visitation rights that straight couples can because of these unconstitutional bans on same-sex marriage. The various states involved have failed to demonstrate any reason why these loving and committed couples should not be allowed to marry, thus creating, as the Massachusetts Court said, a group of second-class citizens.

The Establishment Clause of the First amendment is also at issue here in this debate. It is commonly understood that the majority, if not all, of the opposition to gay marriage is based on religious doctrine. Yet, it is important to note that what is at issue here is not the definition of marriage within any religious institution or context, but rather the definition of secular, civil marriage. The religious beliefs of lawmakers, and the public, cannot prevent the state from ensuring that all of its citizens are equally protected under the law. Prohibiting gay marriage is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment, as it is tantamount to using the state to enforce one's religious beliefs and doctrines.

Moreover, the insistence and preoccupation of the religious right and other conservative religious movements on deeming homosexuality a sinful choice that the state should not recognize is far more indicative of prejudices and xenophobia than any true religious conviction or piousness; there is no protest from the Christian Coalition about the lack of stoning as a punishment in the US Judicial system or other equally archaic measures discussed in the Bible. In fact, this selective enforcement of biblical doctrine is a futile attempt at classifying homosexual behavior as unnatural and immoral. The truth is, homosexuality or homosexual acts have been observed in over 400 species, from the fruit fly, to the Bonobo, with whom we share 98 percent of our DNA. The representation of homosexuality in various religious texts as a sinful activity is just one example of the many historically religious tenets that are no longer wholly applicable to contemporary society.

The good news is that other cities around the country are following the lead of San Francisco in ignoring discriminatory laws barring gay marriage. A county clerk in Bernalillo, New Mexico started issuing marriage licenses to gay couples on Feb. 19, on the grounds that the New Mexican constitution defines marriage as between two contracting parties but does not mention sex.

Likewise, the mayor of Chicago, Richard M. Daley, recently hinted in a press conference that he would not be opposed to the issuing of marriage licenses to same sex couples. Asked if he thought such unions could undermine the institution of marriage, Daley responded to the press, "Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage. You're not going to lecture me about marriage. People should look at their own life and look in their own mirror. Marriage has been undermined for a number of years if you look at the facts and figures on it. Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community. Please don't blame them for it."

Mayor Daley is right; it was this very argument, the supposed ability to undermine marriage, that prevented interracial marriages from legally taking place for so many years. Now, in the year 2004, it is about time equal rights for all really meant it.

Philip Martin is a sophomore majoring in political science. Dan Grant is a freshman with and undeclared major. Martin and Grant are co-presidents of the Tufts ACLU.