Gay Marriage Redux

A year ago San Francisco extended to homosexuals a right basic to the preservation and enrichment of our society – the ability to create a family through marriage.

Since then, the 3,000 same-sex weddings in that city have been nullified. Citizens of 14 states have amended their constitutions to specifically deny this right to anyone who wants to marry someone of the same gender. Lawsuits have been launched on a long trip toward the U.S. Supreme Court, which will make the final decision on whether people can be denied the bonds of marriage based solely on who they are.

The anniversary of San Francisco’s version of the Boston Tea Party serves as a cue to a society that has largely ignored the issue in the face of war and elections. Surely all the arguments and sub-arguments will resurface and fill news pages and the airwaves. Surely the millions of people who are willing to discuss it will once again get lost in claims and counter-claims.

But the heart of the issue is relatively straightforward.

The Constitution of the United States, as well as those of all 50 states, guarantees equal treatment under the law. That is what the Supreme Court said in 1967 when it struck down statutes barring people of different races from enjoying the rights and responsibilities of marriage. That Joe is Caucasian and Barbara is African-American is meaningless under the Constitution. That Mary and Susan are of the same gender should be deemed equally irrelevant.

The case against same-sex marriage is muddled.

Opponents contend that allowing same-sex couples to wed denigrates marriage and its benefit to society. But the basic concept of marriage -- two people forming an emotional, social, and legal bond -- supports a healthy society. As for harm to the institution, people should reflect on the 50 percent divorce rate among heterosexuals and ask, “could gays do worse?”

Those who insert religion and millennia of morality into the debate should turn to their bibles, specifically the books of Kings and Genesis. There they will learn Kings David and Solomon were polygamous and the prophet Abraham’s first child was born out of wedlock to a slave. Of course that was at a different time and in a different place. And so our time and place is different than when the bible was written.

Some also contend that marriage was created to legitimize procreation and provide a stable and loving environment in which to rear children. That makes sense. It also makes sense to the thousands of gay individuals and couples who are doing their best to rear healthy, happy children.

Civil rights flow from the Constitution, not from personal opinion or societal preference. Denying gays the right to marry is discriminatory. As the Supreme Court wrote in a 2003 case involving homosexuality , “… the Court’s obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code.”