One of my earliest memories is the first wedding that I ever attended. My parents were terribly excited, even though it was to be a low-key occasion. Two of their good friends were tying the knot - who wouldn't be enthusiastic? I was happy, because I was of the age when any big celebration was fun. The defining moment came when the bride and bride walked out of the building where the makeshift ceremony had taken place, and we all exploded in cheers, applause, and rice-throwing. Read that again. "The bride and bride."
The setting was the late 1980s, in San Francisco. But it could honestly have been anywhere, at any time. It was our good fortune to live in an area where tolerance for love between two people, regardless of gender, was a given. After the event, my parents explained (a tad bitterly) that gay people were not allowed to get married in this country. The rights that my mother and father had exercised years before were unavailable to certain segments of the population. What we had just witnessed was a public declaration of the wishful thinking of millions of people around the world. My parents' friends had exchanged rings, vows, and promise of fidelity and love, till death should they part, just like any other average married couple. The difference was that they were unable to follow up with a walk down to the country registrar's office in order to request a marriage license. This simple action is carried out every day, in every state of the union, by heterosexual partners. The eyes of the law were and still are blind to "alternative lifestyles."
The big debate that has entered the fray of American politics of late is over gay marriage. Several factors have recently pushed the issue to the forefront, far faster than both proponents and opponents had expected. In the first place, it is fully legal in the countries of Belgium and the Netherlands. Although these have been hailed as great victories by gay rights activists the world over, the truth of the matter is that very few citizens of the globe are poised to take advantage of the progressive laws enacted. Moreover, neither nation exerts much influence on world opinion. Recent developments on this side of the Atlantic, however, have caused a resurgence in the great debate. Two events in quick succession this summer reframed everything. The Supreme Court of the United States struck down an anti-sodomy law in Texas, nullifying such legislation at both the state and federal level. At the same time, a regional court in Canada found that denying the extension of marriage rights and benefits to same-sex couples was discriminatory in the extreme. Owing to the legal system in place there, it suddenly appeared that no obstacle impeded fully legal gay marriage throughout the whole country. Since the United States recognises Canadian marriage licenses, a vastly complex legal conundrum began to coalesce. The matter is still unresolved. But the advantage of these steps forward is that it forced many people of the U.S. and world to fundamentally rethink their positions. Vibrant, healthy debate began anew, which can only serve to strengthen our democracy and reshape our public policy.
Many people who are against marriage between two people of the same sex provide the rationale of deeply held religious beliefs that forbid such unions. But they overlook a crucial tenet of our society. The state and federal governments extend many privileges to married couples, including tax breaks, insurance benefits, and the right of inheritance. This is tantamount to social engineering. Unmarried individuals are also discriminated against for this reason, having no access to these financial boons. The government is, in effect, urging people to marry in order to better their chances of fiscal stability. The religious conservatives arraying themselves behind the cloak of 'traditional marriage' are, of course, free to exclude same-sex couples from their congregations and wedding altars. That is their inalienable right as private organisations. However, people get married purely for non-religious reasons as well, such as collecting those government incentives, or even to extend U.S. citizenship to one partner. Most of all, though, people are prone to marry because of love, something no-one can deny. Many homosexual couples who wish to marry are unconcerned with whether each and every religion is willing to bless and sanctify their conjugal bliss, but rather that their love is recognised within the bounds of American law. The civil unions law signed by current Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean when he was Governor of Vermont is an excellent example of this. Upon entering into a civil union, two people are conferred all of the rights and benefits that married couples are entitled to. There is no religious aspect to these unions; they are entirely in the domain of the state government. For these reasons, it is fair to say that many of the opponents of gay marriage are unqualified to rule upon the issue, being that they are unaffiliated with government work. It is not the government's job to carry out the will of religions; rather, it should be utilized to provide marriage equality for all.
The United States Senate Majority Leader, Republican William Frist of Tennessee, has advocated a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as an institution purely between a man and a woman. To Senator Frist, I pose the question: would you also like to amend the Pledge of Allegiance to say, "liberty and justice for some"