Liberty, Justice and Marriage for All

By Evan Wolfson

Published July 04, 2003, issue of July 04, 2003.
  • Print
  • Share Share

On June 26, the Supreme Court overturned its infamous Bowers v. Hardwick decision of 1986, which ruled that gay people’s private sexual intimacy did not warrant constitutional protection in the bedroom because there is “no connection between family, marriage or procreation on the one hand,” and gay people on the other.

Sixteen days earlier, Canada became the third country in the world to allow lesbian and gay couples the freedom to marry. In a unanimous decision, the high court of Ontario ruled that the exclusion of same-sex couples from the important legal institution of civil marriage infringes upon human dignity, harms real families, including children, and violates constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness. Canada’s government has embraced that decision, and lesbian and gay couples have gotten married. Niagara Falls is still falling, but the sky has not.

During the last 17 years, lesbian and gay couples across North America have shown that, contrary to the repudiated Bowers v. Hardwick claim, our lives and aspirations have everything to do with commitment, dedication to family and raising children, sexual choice and intimacy — and yes, marriage.

So why, then, is there no marriage equality for same-sex couples in America?

In 1996, following a historic trial at which the state had a chance to make any argument and offer any evidence it chose, Hawaii Judge Kevin Chang found: “In Hawaii, and elsewhere, people marry for a variety of reasons, including: (1) having or raising children; (2) stability and commitment; (3) emotional closeness; (4) intimacy and monogamy; (5) the establishment of a framework for a long-term relationship; (6) personal significance; (7) legal and economic protections, benefits and obligations.” Same-sex couples, the judge declared, share the same mix of reasons as different-sex couples for wanting to get married. The Hawaii court held — as courts have since in Vermont and, now, Canada — that the government has no good reason for excluding same-sex couples from the commitment, responsibilities and protections of civil marriage.

Right-wing groups have opposed ending marriage discrimination, just as they have fought any measure of protection for gay people’s families. Politicians who pander to them, such as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, have been willing to attack gay people as convenient scapegoats — even threatening recently to support amendments to the Constitution, our nation’s greatest treasure, which protects all of us in our religious freedom and equal claim to liberty and basic rights.

Yet none of these groups or politicians can give a good reason for excluding gay people from marriage. Their claims that the sky will fall are the same cries of gloom and doom they made in previous national battles over marriage — struggles over ending race restrictions on who could marry whom; abolishing women’s legal subordination in marriage by which women actually lost rights and their own legal identity upon marrying; removing laws that denied married and unmarried people the right to make their own decisions about contraception and parenting, and creating divorce laws that freed people from failed or abusive marriages. Much as the Supreme Court said of its now-repudiated anti-gay decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, they were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote last week in his dissenting opinion that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage rests on “pretty shaky grounds.” As he noted, “the encouragement of procreation” cannot justify the exclusion, “since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry” — so why, then, not same-sex couples? Though I rarely agree with Scalia, when he’s right, he’s right.

Moreover, since many same-sex couples today are raising children and want the best for their kids, why punish those kids by having the “wrong” parents and deprive them of the support and protections that would come to their families with marriage?

Poll after poll has found that young people in this country strongly support allowing gay people to wed, and more than two-thirds of all Americans believe gay people will win the freedom to marry. Non-gay Americans are coming to understand that excluding gay people from family protections such as access to healthcare, parenting and immigration rights, Social Security and the other concomitants of marriage is wrong, just as including the police in our bedrooms is wrong.

I am proud that Jewish voices — such as those of the Reform movement’s Central Conference of American Rabbis and Union of American Hebrew Congregations, as well as the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation — are among those engaged in this civil rights struggle to allow gay couples the freedom to marry. They understand the difference between civil and religious marriage, and respect America’s commitment to equality for all.

Thirty years from now, when the United States has followed Canada in ending sex discrimination in civil marriage, we will each look back on this time and this struggle with either pride or shame. Who will be able to proclaim that they stood with those who worked to end discrimination in marriage, and who will have to admit that they enabled those who not only resisted change, but wanted to turn back the clock?

If Canada can trust that the sky won’t fall when its people are treated with respect, Americans just across the border can hold our own country true to its promise of equality, the pursuit of happiness and justice for all, and let gay couples wed.

Evan Wolfson is executive director of Freedom to Marry, a gay and non-gay partnership working to win marriage equality nationwide. He served as co-counsel in the Hawaii marriage-equality case Baehr v. Miike.






Find us on Facebook!
  • "My wife and I are both half-Jewish. Both of us very much felt and feel American first and Jewish second. We are currently debating whether we should send our daughter to a Jewish pre-K and kindergarten program or to a public one. Pros? Give her a Jewish community and identity that she could build on throughout her life. Cons? Costs a lot of money; She will enter school with the idea that being Jewish makes her different somehow instead of something that you do after or in addition to regular school. Maybe a Shabbat sing-along would be enough?"
  • Undeterred by the conflict, 24 Jews participated in the first ever Jewish National Fund— JDate singles trip to Israel. Translation: Jews age 30 to 45 travelled to Israel to get it on in the sun, with a side of hummus.
  • "It pains and shocks me to say this, but here goes: My father was right all along. He always told me, as I spouted liberal talking points at the Shabbos table and challenged his hawkish views on Israel and the Palestinians to his unending chagrin, that I would one day change my tune." Have you had a similar experience?
  • "'What’s this, mommy?' she asked, while pulling at the purple sleeve to unwrap this mysterious little gift mom keeps hidden in the inside pocket of her bag. Oh boy, how do I answer?"
  • "I fear that we are witnessing the end of politics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I see no possibility for resolution right now. I look into the future and see only a void." What do you think?
  • Not a gazillionaire? Take the "poor door."
  • "We will do what we must to protect our people. We have that right. We are not less deserving of life and quiet than anyone else. No more apologies."
  • "Woody Allen should have quit while he was ahead." Ezra Glinter's review of "Magic in the Moonlight": http://jd.fo/f4Q1Q
  • Jon Stewart responds to his critics: “Look, obviously there are many strong opinions on this. But just merely mentioning Israel or questioning in any way the effectiveness or humanity of Israel’s policies is not the same thing as being pro-Hamas.”
  • "My bat mitzvah party took place in our living room. There were only a few Jewish kids there, and only one from my Sunday school class. She sat in the corner, wearing the right clothes, asking her mom when they could go." The latest in our Promised Lands series — what state should we visit next?
  • Former Israeli National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror: “A cease-fire will mean that anytime Hamas wants to fight it can. Occupation of Gaza will bring longer-term quiet, but the price will be very high.” What do you think?
  • Should couples sign a pre-pregnancy contract, outlining how caring for the infant will be equally divided between the two parties involved? Just think of it as a ketubah for expectant parents:
  • Many #Israelis can't make it to bomb shelters in time. One of them is Amos Oz.
  • According to Israeli professor Mordechai Kedar, “the only thing that can deter terrorists, like those who kidnapped the children and killed them, is the knowledge that their sister or their mother will be raped."
  • Why does ultra-Orthodox group Agudath Israel of America receive its largest donation from the majority owners of Walmart? Find out here: http://jd.fo/q4XfI
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.