Playing Politics with Gay People's Lives

[n2doc]

We play politics with gay people's lives

By CHRISTIANNE NOBLE WALKER
GUEST COLUMNIST

Are we done yet?

Now that eight more states have gay-marriage bans written into their constitutions -- 45 states ban it through amendment or statute -- are we done playing politics with gay people's lives? Is the public done being duped to vote for those measures because they think two women committing to each other for life before the law somehow threatens their own marriage or commands their churches to reinterpret their Bible? Because I'm done being a punching bag whose personhood is routinely put up to a public vote so others can feel morally righteous. I've had it with critical decisions about my life being decided by a group of people who don't like the fact that I chose to marry a woman instead of a man. "One man, one woman: let the people vote!" chant those in Massachusetts who want to reverse the right gays and lesbians have had for more than two years to marry. Yes, yes, our civil rights should always be subject to the personal prejudices of the masses -- that's democracy. But for the decision of some "activist judges," blacks might still be legally considered two-thirds of a person. I prefer the slogan seen on a marriage supporter's poster in Massachusetts: "Can I vote on your marriage?"

Don't be fooled when gay-marriage foes claim they aren't opposed to gay people, they only want to protect the sanctity of marriage and preserve an institution just because it has always been this way. Make no mistake: Gay-marriage opponents are not against gay marriage. They are against gay people. To paraphrase what an openly gay state senator from Massachusetts, Jarrett Barrios, said recently in a debate that, I hope, finally, ended their gay-marriage debate: You don't have to like me, you don't have to live next to me, but I have every right to enjoy the same rights that you have enjoyed for time immemorial.

I am done with those who hold that only in the case of gays and lesbians can separate be equal. If it's not called marriage, it's not recognized across state lines and not by the federal government. That means my marital status depends on which state I'm standing in, I cannot file a joint tax return with my wife, I would not be able to receive her Social Security benefits if she dies, and I would not automatically be considered the legal parent to our child if my wife is the one who gives birth. Take your pick -- there are 1,138 rights that the federal government confers upon married, not civil-unioned (is that even a word yet?) people. Do you still think civil unions are plenty good enough for gay folks? I challenge any married heterosexual person to trade in his or her marriage certificate for a civil union certificate. Would you do it? When you got engaged, would you have squealed with delight at telling your family and friends, "We're getting civil unioned!"

Would you be OK if hospital staff demanded documentation proving you are the spouse of the person who was just brought in by ambulance instead of just taking your word for it? Would you be happy if your state had a constitutional amendment saying that all protections herein apply equally to everyone except you?

I thought not.

link:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/294419_firstperson04.html

[bluestateguy]

1. No, banning marriage won't be enough for them

Next it will be laws that ban adoption and legalize workplace discrimination.

[Dhalgren]

2. Ms Walker is absolutely right. There can be no debate about

the rights - full rights - of citizens. This is not up for question, this is fundamental. Any person who is an advocate for racial equality and does not advocate for sexual equality is a hypocrite, pure and simple. For anyone to even suggest that the sexual orientation of a citizen should be any kind of criterion for social equality is, essentially, un-American, in the real sense of the term. I, too, am done with making any concessions regarding this matter. Equal rights must be a part of any political party's platform if that party wants my support - either labor, money, or vote. Enough is enough...

[Kellyiswise]

3. If you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, ban divorce.