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!
  • Why "Be fruitful and multiply" isn't as simple as it seems:
  • William Schabas may be the least of Israel's problems.
  • You've heard of the #IceBucketChallenge, but Forward publisher Sam Norich has something better: a #SoupBucketChallenge (complete with matzo balls!) Jon Stewart, Sarah Silverman & David Remnick, you have 24 hours!
  • Did Hamas just take credit for kidnapping the three Israeli teens?
  • "We know what it means to be in the headlines. We know what it feels like when the world sits idly by and watches the news from the luxury of their living room couches. We know the pain of silence. We know the agony of inaction."
  • When YA romance becomes "Hasidsploitation":
  • "I am wrapping up the summer with a beach vacation with my non-Jewish in-laws. They’re good people and real leftists who try to live the values they preach. This was a quality I admired, until the latest war in Gaza. Now they are adamant that American Jews need to take more responsibility for the deaths in Gaza. They are educated people who understand the political complexity, but I don’t think they get the emotional complexity of being an American Jew who is capable of criticizing Israel but still feels a deep connection to it. How can I get this across to them?"
  • “'I made a new friend,' my son told his grandfather later that day. 'I don’t know her name, but she was very nice. We met on the bus.' Welcome to Israel."
  • A Jewish female sword swallower. It's as cool as it sounds (and looks)!
  • Why did David Menachem Gordon join the IDF? In his own words: "The Israel Defense Forces is an army that fights for her nation’s survival and the absence of its warriors equals destruction from numerous regional foes. America is not quite under the threat of total annihilation… Simply put, I felt I was needed more in Israel than in the United States."
  • Leonard Fein's most enduring legacy may be his rejection of dualism: the idea that Jews must choose between assertiveness and compassion, between tribalism and universalism. Steven M. Cohen remembers a great Jewish progressive:
  • BREAKING: Missing lone soldier David Menachem Gordon has been found dead in central Israel. The Ohio native was 21 years old.
  • “They think they can slap on an Amish hat and a long black robe, and they’ve created a Hasid." What do you think of Hollywood's portrayal of Hasidic Jews?
  • “I’ve been doing this since I was a teenager. I didn’t think I would have to do it when I was 90.” Hedy Epstein fled Nazi Germany in 1933 on a Kinderstransport.
  • "A few decades ago, it would have been easy to add Jews to that list of disempowered victims. I could throw in Leo Frank, the victim of mob justice; or otherwise privileged Jewish men denied entrance to elite universities. These days, however, we have to search a lot harder." Are you worried about what's going in on #Ferguson?
  • 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.