[ + ] Text [ – ]

By Evan Wolfson: Marriage Equality is Within Reach, If We Do the Reaching (and Don't Under-Reach)

Freedom to Marry
October 16, 2005
Originally adapted from a speech given to the Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington (.wav) on October 16, 2005
Adapted and published in The Stranger on October 20, 2005

Couples who are doing the work of marriage right in their home state — caring for one another, raising kids, worrying about aging parents, paying taxes, contributing to the community, even fighting over who takes out the garbage — couples who have made this personal commitment in life deserve an equal commitment in law. That commitment in their state is called marriage.

Courts have repeatedly found that the state can't justify the continued exclusion of these Washington couples from marriage. And, of course, there is no good reason to withhold the freedom to marry from some Americans based on their sex or sexual orientation, any more than there was to withhold the freedom to marry based on race or religion.

As the public and decision-makers wrestle with this civil rights question, it is important that those who favor equality and inclusion use the time now to unite around a few clear points that will help defend a victory against the inevitable right-wing attack and help explain to the "reachable middle" why ending marriage discrimination is the right thing to do. Each of us must talk to the people around us to explain why marriage matters, why we care about ending discrimination here at home, and why we trust them to be fair and do the right thing. Tools for these conversations and to empower more voices for fairness can be found on websites of groups like Equal Rights Washington (www.equalrightswashington.org) and Freedom to Marry (www.freedomtomarry.org).

The right way to end discrimination in marriage is to, well, end discrimination in marriage. Not create something new, different, lesser, or other. Not to take our nation, again, down the path of separate and unequal treatment for some. Not to say to some couples and their kids, "You come in the front," while telling others to go around back. Couples seeking the freedom to marry deserve a clear and simple answer: marriage — same rules, same responsibilities, same respect.

To forestall any ill-thought-out flinching or faint-heartedness from friends of fairness, let's all be clear now — and then spread the word — the freedom to marry matters. Here's why:

Marriage offers an incomparable—and irreplaceably broad—array of protections and responsibilities under state, federal, and international law. This safety-net affects every area of life from birth to death, with taxes in between. The rules relating to marriage have been worked out through courts and legislatures to cover an astonishing array of contingencies, and cannot be replicated by any other contract, statute, or state's new invention. No separate status — whether called civil unions, domestic partnership, or shmarriage — provides economic justice to couples and their kids. Around the world, everyone knows what marriage entails. No newly invented status brings what comes, tangibly and intangibly, with a legal marriage license and the two words, "I do."

As described in my book, Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People's Right to Marry, there are several reasons why civil unions are no substitute for marriage, and not the right answer for couples, communities, and our country:

• One of the main protections that come with marriage is the word marriage, and the security, clarity, and dignity it brings to families. To be denied the vocabulary of marriage and its meaningful, resonant, and readily understood statement of love and commitment — and instead, have to fumble for ten documents, an explanation of a new term that doesn't even have a verb, and, possibly, a lawyer just to protect your family in a time of crisis — is not fair and not equal.
• Civil unions are good, but limited, and do not provide the full range of protection for families. There is only one system in our country that protects families no matter where they live or travel; it's called marriage. Civil unions do not provide the 1,138 federal incidents of marriage, or assure security and equal treatment from state to state.
• Civil unions are a product of the work to win marriage itself; we don't get even civil unions by asking for civil unions. Support for civil unions represent a place-holder in people's thinking as they grapple with the need to end discrimination against gay people, same-sex couples, and our kids. Running away from a discussion of how the denial of marriage harms families, and failing to defuse this hot-button, undercuts the reachable middle's ability to rise to fairness.
• The opponents of equality are against civil union as well as marriage, as shown by the anti-gay amendments being pushed state by state and in Congress by right-wing groups. These attack measures would deny the freedom to marry, but also civil union, domestic partnership, and any other bit of protection, large or small. Separate and unequal "compromises" satisfy no one, and legislators who capitulate on questions of fundamental fairness and basic rights buy no one off, gain no peace, spare the state no debate, avoid no primary challenges, but rather just fall short on all sides. If we are going to have to fight anyway, why not fight for what we fully deserve? In fact, authenticity and leadership actually help politicians guide the public to the right result. Consider: In Vermont, where legislators created civil union rather than ended marriage discrimination, a right-wing firestorm followed anyway, with hateful attack ads across the state, primary challenges, and electoral turbulence. By contrast, in Massachusetts, every single legislator who supported marriage equality won reelection and some of the anti's were defeated, because the public had a chance to see leadership, hear the case, and, most important, witness with their own eyes that when same-sex couples married, they didn't use up the marriage licenses and the sky didn't fall.

To sum it up, either marriage and civil union are the same, in which case, why do we need two lines at the clerk's office, or they are not the same, in which, what is the government withholding from these families in their state, and why?

Let us hope the courts do their job, and uphold the constitution's command of equality for all. If the question of marriage discrimination goes to the legislature, let us hope our elected officials do their job, and end that discrimination, rather than repackaging it. And in the meantime, let us each do our job: helping people around us understand why marriage matters, why equality and fairness require an end to discrimination in marriage.

Two rules: First, don't assume that just because people are generally pro-gay or tolerant, or just because they like or love us, that they know the right answer here. We must connect the dots and make the personal ask. Rule 2 is the flip side: don't assume that just because someone is not yet with us means they can't get there. By speaking out clearly for an end to discrimination in marriage, each of us can make that happen, and make our state a better place for all families. Let's not begin these conversations bargaining against ourselves.

Click here for other stories about hardships faced by couples deprived of marriage.