DFP STAFF: Marriage ruling crucial step

Hawaii got the ball rolling. Vermont met the issue halfway. But on Tuesday, of Massachusetts became the first commonwealth where homosexual couples can legally marry. The 4-3 ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court gives the state 180 days to prepare for what will no doubt be a surge in applicants for marriage, but supporters of the ruling who should include Democratic presidential candidates should not rest in championing the SJC’s reasoning and fighting the inevitable backlash.

The ruling may reflect changing times, but in essence, it merely upholds basic rights. The court rightfully reasoned the Massachusetts Constitution ‘forbids the creation of second-class citizens’ and ‘affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals.’ Forbidding loving couples to marry clearly denies them the dignity and equality afforded to all other citizens, from co-workers to criminals. The court’s decision gives more legitimacy to the issue of gay marriage than a legislative decision that could have drawn charges of political bias and manipulation. Instead of legislating social change, as opponents of the ruling have already charged, the court clarified a constitutional question one that should have been apparent long ago.

The state’s argument that marriage exists primarily to promote the bearing and raising of children is outdated and ridiculous. Following that logic, infertile people and elderly couples past their ability to procreate should also be barred from marriage. Above all else, marriage is a powerful covenant between two people who are completely dedicated in their love for each other. Why are couples of the same sex who exhibit the devotion marriage requires viewed as a stronger menace to the sanctity of marriage then a divorce rate approaching 50 percent among heterosexual couples?

The argument that marriage has been defined as between heterosexuals for thousands of years, reiterated Tuesday by Gov. Mitt Romney and President George W. Bush, is also obsolete. Yes, part of marriage’s potency and power comes from its deep sense of tradition, and it would be foolish not to acknowledge the institution’s history. But the ruling only applies to civil marriage and rightly does not infringe upon religious tradition.

Still, traditions change. Black people are no longer slaves, women are allowed to vote and hold property and now gay couples can marry. No institution should stand in America if its bedrock principle rests on the denial of the rights due to all Americans. The modification not overthrow or degradation of the institution of marriage was long overdue. Now, this elimination of discrimination should help defuse the real reasons for the restriction of gay marriage. Not concern for courts overstepping their bounds, not the state benefits reaped from procreation, not obeisance to outdated traditions, but puerile intolerance.

Allowing homosexuals to marry provides them with benefits many people take for granted. Visitation rights for hospitalized spouses, full insurance and health coverage and the ability to file jointly every April 15 in other words, normal privileges and responsibilities available to nearly everyone else in society can now be part of gay couples’ lives. Besides the obvious material benefits, these rights and duties will serve to bring homosexuals further into American society. Additionally, the ability to marry will help reduce ugly stereotypes of gays as promiscuous bathhouse-hoppers and unfit parents. Perhaps the people who will benefit the most from this ruling, however, are the children of gay couples who will finally be able to say that they belong to a family that must be recognized by everyone. This leap into the mainstream will only help further tolerance and acceptance of all homosexuals. And these are the kind of family values that Democratic politicians should embrace.

Very few people think this issue will have no bearing on the 2004 presidential election. It is up to the Democrats to keep the issue at the forefront. Instead of wasting their time bashing Bush’s foreign and economic policies while offering no solutions, or engaging in petty attacks on each other, they can champion one of the most important civil rights issues of our time.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean may seem like a natural proponent, having pushed civil unions through his state three years ago, but he is also in the process of courting black and Southern voters, who oppose same-sex marriage overall. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry also favors civil unions, but has hesitated to endorse full marriage rights. It will take a leader with backbone to endorse gay marriage across the country, and so far the Democrats seem to have the collective spine of a jellyfish. Gay marriage may not be a crowd-pleaser like fixing the economy or preventing loss of life in Iraq, but it is an issue that is just as important.

Half a century ago, the federal government took steps to ensure civil rights for citizens of all races, wherever they lived. States’ rights advocates protested loudly, but the federal government rightly enforced the rights accorded to all Americans. Black people were finally allowed to vote, attend any school and intermarry with whites. Now, the states are leading the way toward a more equal society, while President Bush vows to ‘do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage,’ is more than unfortunate that the government of the world’s freest nation, one that is committed to spreading democracy and all its benefits across the globe, has come out against creating a more free and open society. It is a sign that the battle for nationwide same-sex marriage will be long and arduous, with little time to celebrate victories similar to Tuesday’s. With support from those, on both state and national levels, victory is possible. It is not in Massachusetts’ interest to prevent those who love each other from expressing that love in the form of marriage. It should not be in the United States’ interest either.