VALERIE SCHULTZ: In love, committed and gay: Why can't my daughter get married?
| Wednesday, Nov 18 2009 03:43 PM
Last Updated Wednesday, Nov 18 2009 03:43 PM
Delightful news has come our way: the first of our daughters is engaged. At 25, she has found her true love, her soul mate, the person to whom she is ready to promise the rest of her life. Our family is so happy for them: we think they are, as they say in "Sleepless in Seattle," "MFEO" (Made For Each Other). Our daughter is immersed in details: dresses and guest lists, menus and venues. She is an artist, and has already designed a handmade invitation. For a girl who used to read bride magazines for fun, this is a magical time.
The engaged couple plans an August 2011 wedding in Portland, so there is plenty of time for the particulars. The thing is, we can't really say our daughter is getting married. Since our daughter is a lesbian, the closest we can say is that, in the state of Oregon, she is getting "domestically partnered." She and her partner are not fazed by the inherent injustice of their situation. "Mom," she said, "we just say we're getting hitched." The current, discriminatory laws regarding same-sex marriage cannot cloud their young optimism.
Although raised in a Catholic family, our daughter will not be getting married in the church. She long ago left the institution from which she, as a gay person, felt no welcome. The church, of course, has the right to deny her a wedding. The state does not. Because marriage is both a religious institution and a legal contract, we tend to confuse religious belief with the rule of law. Using the same word -- marriage -- for different concepts and different ceremonies muddies the issue, but the use or misuse of a word cannot justify oppression. A marriage by any other name, such as "civil union" or "domestic partnership," does not smell as sweet, because unfortunately, the same comprehensive legal rights are not acquired by any arrangement between two people other than civil marriage.
I believe it is only a matter of time until our government gathers the courage to do the right thing and extend full and equal civil rights to all couples, whether they are gay or straight, and regardless of the state in which they reside. Society is evolving in its acceptance of the right of same-sex couples to pursue the same happiness other married couples enjoy: witness the appearance of same-sex union congratulations cards in my neighborhood Hallmark store. A change in the law will come, and it must be codified at the federal level.
The great state of Maine has recently offered more proof that the civil rights of the few should not be left to a state-by-state, popular vote. Voters repealed the same-sex marriage law that Maine's legislature had passed in the spring and that their governor had signed. Imagine if, in the early 1960s, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson had allowed each state to vote on its own integration policies and minority voting rights. A patchwork of uneven discrimination and widespread confusion would have resulted. These presidents wisely saw that civil rights legislation was a federal issue, its passage mandated by justice rather than popularity. "When history shines a spotlight on you, you have an opportunity to advance the cause or to let the cause slip backwards," said Governor John Baldacci of Maine. He chose to move forward, only to see his action overturned by an inflamed public. Now, it is time for President Obama to champion the cause of securing full civil rights for gay and lesbian Americans.
"God has given us this victory," said one of the Maine opponents of same-sex marriage. Well, no. The mind of God is perhaps not so easily read. The victory was the result of the votes of citizens of a democracy using their power unjustly, and possibly fearfully, to deny the civil rights of a targeted minority. While the passion of these upright people springs from a devotion to religion, the United States is emphatically not a theocracy. Equality and human rights are not dependent on sectarian approval.
I understand the commitment a person of faith may feel to the institution of traditional marriage. I am entirely committed to my marriage, and am gratified that my daughter seeks the same solid structure for her future with her chosen partner. What I don't understand is how denying my daughter the security and stability of a loving marriage in any way denigrates the sanctity of someone else's heterosexual child's marriage.
My heart breaks a little to know that there are people who would fight against my daughter's happiness, who would label her a sinner or a freak, who would outlaw her commitment ceremony. With considerable bravery and grace, my daughter is following her heart and her calling to be her best self, to be exactly who God created her to be. My hope is that ours is a civilized society that will continue to evolve in a way that accepts her for who she is, and honors her full civil rights, during her lifetime.
