A Defense of Second-Class Citizens

My fellow Americans,

In honor of the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, I am writing an extra post this week to talk about civil liberties.  The revered reverend spent the mid-twentieth century fighting for the civil rights of his brethren.  Many at the time thought it was fine to have 'separate but equal' institutions.  Many thought it was progress that we allowed African Americans to be "free", even though segregation and racism abounded.  I am grateful every day that many more fought for true equality, that we stood up as a nation and said, "this is not acceptable."

Today, we face a different prejudice: homophobia.  I'm glad that I'm not writing about how my fellow citizens face heavy discrimination based on race.  Yes, racism is still an issue, but the major battles have been won.  Prejudice in education, housing and marriage are minimal.  The things that make a person whole are generally not kept to 'whites only', as many signs used to read.

Today, we deal with a large group of American citizens who are denied basic human rights: marriage and family.  No, people are not denied entry into colleges nor restaurants because they are gay.  However, they're denied entry into that most basic of institutions: wedded bliss.

"Civil unions" are an insult.  They are not equal, anymore than "black schools" were equal to "white schools" in the 1960's.  Most government and private institutions don't recognize civil unions.  A civil union doesn't make two people next of kin to each other.  Why is this a big deal?  Imagine if your spouse was in a car accident, and you couldn't see them because you weren't their legal next of kin.  Imagine if you didn't automatically have medical power of attorney or if you had to jump through major legal hoops, drawing up contracts, to make sure your spouse could continue to live in their house upon your death.

In addition, most states will not allow a homosexual person to adopt a child.  Now, I have issues with adoption laws as they're written anyway, but let's look at this closely as it relates to gay couples.  First, many gay couples currently have to accept that they must move to complete their family.  This is particularly true for male couples, as female couples can at least undergo artificial insemination.  In states that don't allow homosexuals to adopt, though, the children only have one legal parent, even though two people are raising them.  That means that grandparents and others can step in if the worst happens and the "legal parent" of the child dies.  There was a famous case many years ago that was the basis for the TV movie "What Makes A Family", starring Brooke Shields.

In my opinion, denying a group of people the right to marry the person they love is denying them their civil liberties.  Denying people the right to adopt and raise children is denying them their civil liberties.

This is a heated issue, and many people feel very strongly one way or another.  I'm vehemently pro-gay rights, so I would like to ask those opposed to answer the following questions.  For those who say that being gay is a choice: at what age did you decide to be heterosexual?  For those who say civil unions are a fine substitute for marriage: what if homosexuals could marry, but heterosexuals had to make do with civil unions?  For those who don't think homosexuals should raise children: what if the majority were gay, and heterosexuals weren't allowed to raise the children they created?  Finally, for those who think it's inappropriate for me to consider this a civil rights issue: are you saying it's ok to deny some groups their rights, as long as it's not your group?

Even if you consider this a 'moral' issue, the governments job is not to determine morality, but to enforce the contracts into which we enter as free citizens.  Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't force the churches to perform the ceremonies; churches today can deny marriage to whomever they choose, regardless of sexuality.  Many would consider it immoral for two complete strangers to marry, and yet they legally can enter into the contract and obtain all the rights, priveleges and penalties that go with it.

I've heard the argument that legalization would diminish the sanctity of marriage between men and women.  Seriously?  In a country with an astonishingly high divorce rate, where we give away husbands on television and mock the marriage process with shows like "Bridezilla", they're concerned that allowing gay couples to marry will diminish the institution?  I'm sorry, but I've known some incredibly devoted, loving gay couples who I believe would make great role models for some of the carelessly married hetero couples.

Please, folks, let's support the fight in the courts to legalize gay marriage.  Let's make sure that we extend the rights and liberties to all our fellow citizens.  None of us is truly free until all of us are free.

Until tomorrow,
MK