"I say we will have no more marriages," shouts Hamlet in a fit of piqued rage. Republicans today, whether they understand it or not, seem to be coming out against marriage almost as much as the melancholy Dane.The current Republican talking point on same-sex marriage is that it should not be allowed because the purpose of marriage (so they say) is for having and raising children. A same-sex couple, they continue, cannot have children; therefore, same-sex couples should be denied marital status. But this talking point, while it may have a certain appeal to right-wing extremists, is a sword that cuts both ways.
If the sole purpose of marriage is to have and raise children, and if only couples who can have children should be allowed to marry, then what about all those couples who are, either individually or as a couple, infertile? If a person is incapable of having a child, say the Republicans, that person should not be allowed to marry.
But wait! What about couples who adopt children? If married parents are so vitally important to successfully raising a child, shouldn't all adoptive parents be married? If that were the case, then once again same-sex couples cannot be singled out for denial of marital rights, since they can adopt just as well as different-sex couples.
The next Republican argument is that many couples benefit from the advances available at fertility clinics. Couples who are naturally infertile, they say, can conceive and bear children with the help of medical science; therefore they should be allowed to marry. Fair enough - if they also admit that same-sex couples can also get children through the same clinics. Once again, the Republican argument doesn't hold water.
In short, the Republican talking point, fully realized, is not a "defense of marriage" but an attack on marriage. Republican attempts to manipulate the side arguments are just more proof that they don't truly believe their own statements.
The mere fact that Republicans believe they must come up with "talking points," no matter how lame and insubstantial, reveals an untold truth. Republicans know, deep down beneath the rhetoric, that they have no legitimate argument against extending marital rights to all couples, regardless of gender.
It appears from their spurious arguments that most Republicans fear their own true convictions. Clearly, they are not comfortable being publicly against same-sex marriage, when they know there is no legitimate argument available for that position. Rather than come clean, however, they hide behind "talking points," pretending they actually agree with such drivel.
There is a word for such behavior. That word is "hypocrisy," the most heinous and evil of all sins. Almost all Republicans, and (sadly) most Democrats as well, are guilty of hypocrisy on the issue of same-sex marriage, and we see the hateful consequences of their sins all around us.
The consequences don't always make the headlines, as when someone like Matthew Shepherd is beaten to death. The consequences are felt every day, across the country and around the world:
- Members of the U.S. armed forces are forced to hide their identity, never knowing when a stray comment could result in discharge.
- Hospital patients, many dying, cannot be with their loved ones because those closest to them are officially not related.
- Long-term couples that break up without the benefit of official divorce proceedings must find new ways to deal with property, alimony, and yes, even child custody.
Disasters large and difficulties small beset people all around us - and us too! When the law, based on centuries of experience, is there to protect and befriend us we find ways to deal with everyday troubles. But when we are excluded from the protection and friendship of our social and legal compacts, we suffer. What is worse, this exclusion is a completely unnecessary evil.
Civil unions, even when they supposedly come with "all the benefits under law" that marriages are supposed to provide, fall short of that goal. For one thing, the federal government doesn't recognize these unions, so federal medical, tax and immigration benefits, among others, are not extended to the "civil partner." Also, what happens when couples who are civilly united in one state move to another state? They lose everything.
Over 50 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of "separate but equal" was baloney. The time has come to extend that ruling.
There is a compromise solution. We can relegate the word "marriage" to the realms of churches and individuals. The law can be changed to recognize only civil unions for all couples. That way, our society can achieve true equality under law without disturbing the stomachs of good people who cannot transcend their early dogmatic indoctrination.
Whatever we decide, whether we call it "marriage" or "civil union," it must be exactly the same for all couples. And it must be the same at all levels - federal as well as state. There is no such thing as "separate but equal." As long as we don't have complete equality - for all people - we have not fulfilled our American dream.
Copyright 2007, Dan Jacoby
For a PDF version of this document, click here.
To contact Dan Jacoby, click here.
Return to the Main Menu