A friend of mine (hi Jamie!) forwarded this wonderful note to me on Facebook. It has apparently been making the rounds and to be completely honest I can not recall reading any better written argument for why marriage rights are so important to homosexuals. In fact I was so impressed that I contacted Terry (the author) to get his permission to publish his note on my blog. Comments are of course encouraged!

 

Open Letter to My Friend Who Opposes Gay Marriage
By Terry Allen-Rouman
May 27, 2009

Thank you for your message, which I’m keeping private at your request, and for your honesty. But I disagree with you. People say that just because they are against gay marriage doesn’t mean they are homophobic. I agree that they do not necessarily “fear” gays, as “phobic” implies, but they are absolutely demonstrating that they feel gays are somehow inferior. My being gay is defined by my being in love with a man rather than a woman. If someone does not see my relationship as equal to a non-gay relationship, I can only conclude they somehow feel, even if subconsciously, that I am inferior.

Marriage in the United States is actually two different institutions, civil marriage and religious marriage. Many couples enjoy both, while others have only one or the other.

Civil marriage legally confers over 1,400 legal rights on a couple, things such as the right to file joint taxes, the right to visit each other in the hospital, the right to inherit each other’s property without lengthy and expensive additional processes in place. In addition to state rights, the federal government confers over 1,100 rights to married couples and up until recently recognized each state’s civil marriages to confer these rights – now they single out same-gender marriages for exclusion of these rights. Some states, including California, grant many, if not all, of the same state rights as civil marriage under a separate umbrella, such as domestic partnership. But as with other civil rights struggles, separate has proven not to be equal. First and foremost, not all rights are granted to these other types of relationships (especially federal rights in this case). And perhaps as important, at least to me, many people in society simply don’t understand the other types of relationships – everyone understands marriage. With one word, husband, I am able to convey and receive respect for my lifelong commitment to my husband, a “right” that you enjoy, probably without a second thought.

Religious marriage is an institution defined separately by each religion, church, or synagogue. Many religions do not recognize each other’s marriages. I absolutely honor your decision to belong to a religion that does not sanction same-gender marriages. But other religions do sanction same-gender marriages. And at least in the United States, our laws are not supposed to be driven by one religion over another, and certainly are not supposed to suppress any religion. Your church defines “marriage” one way – and I am not trying to change how your church defines it. But I deeply resent Californians voting for, and even being allowed to vote for, changing how my religion defines “marriage.”

Not long ago, interracial marriage was outlawed in many states, using remarkably similar arguments as those used today by those opposing same-gender marriage. Interracial marriage was against many people’s religions at the time, and it was argued that allowing interracial marriage would undermine the entire institution of marriage. Luckily, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws against interracial marriage, ruling in 1967 that “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.”

Jason and I had our religious wedding in 1993, well before we were allowed to have our civil marriage in 2008. Now, although our marriages remain valid, the voters of California have decided not to allow other same-gender couples to enjoy this same right, and the California Supreme Court has agreed. For the first time in history, the majority of voters have rewritten a state’s constitution to discriminate against a minority. This is a dangerous precedent. I find it interesting that although 52.3% of voters voted for Prop. 8 in November, this represents only 30.2% of eligible California voters, and only 19.0% of all Californians. So less than one in five Californians is all it takes to eliminate a group of people’s rights.

Luckily, our country continues to define equality more and more broadly. And history has never looked back kindly at those who have stood in the way of equality. More and more Californians and more and more Americans support same-gender marriage each year, realizing that equality needs to include everyone. I look forward to the day that it does.