Why Marriage Equality Matters

If you spend much time in conversation with me, peruse my Facebook page, hack into my e-mail to see what mailing lists I subscribe to, or take a look at the rear bumper of my car, you quickly will discover that I am an adamant supporter of LGBT equality. Now, there are many inequality concerns facing this community, but the one that is currently getting the most press is that of gay marriage. This is an issue on which I take a VERY strong stance.
While the majority of my generation, regardless of political or religious affiliation, does support gay marriage, I think that some people wonder why, as a woman married to a man, I consider this such a personally important issue. Why should it matter so much to me?

Unlike many young Americans, I do not believe that marriage is an outdated institution. I actually think that marriage is extremely positive for society. We do better as a culture when individuals are partnered in dyads. Children (on the whole) fare better when raised in two-parent households. The prominent conservative attorney Theodore Olson hit the nail on the head with his assertion that marriage “transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society.”

On a personal level, marriage has been incredibly life-enhancing for me. I have been lucky enough to find my perfect match, and on my wedding day, I was 110% ready to make that legally-binding commitment to him. Every day, Ben and I re-commit ourselves to one another by choosing to remain legally bound. Do we NEED that piece of paper, issued by the government, to legitimize our relationship? Absolutely not. Does it come with certain (many) inherent privileges that we enjoy as a result of our decision to tie the knot? Definitely. Does every consenting, committed, adult couple deserve the same status as us, if they choose it? YES.

I believe that marriage should be upheld in our culture as important and legitimate. To steal a phrase from marriage equality opponents, I believe in the “sanctity of marriage.” And that is exactly why I DO support marriage for same-sex couples. In addition to the approximately 1,050 unique legal benefits that come with marriage (social security benefits, family medical leave act protections, federal tax filing/exemptions, the right to hospital visits and decision-making in health emergencies, etc. ), there is also the intangible quality of being able to say “I am married to my partner.” Every person deserves these benefits, whether his or her partner happens to be of the same or opposite sex. To deny the right of marriage to gay and lesbian couples is BLATANT discrimination.

It breaks my heart that there are nearly one million couples in America who, simply because of their sexual orientation, are denied the status of marriage that Ben and I enjoy, and that is so pivotal to society. If you are married (or if you are heterosexual and plan to marry someday), you too are part that privileged majority. To not speak out against this inequality is to effectively promote it.

I will not endorse systematic discrimination. And that, friends, is why this issue matters to me.

“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.” –Abraham Lincoln

Who Would Jesus Endorse?

I heard on the news last night that 150 evangelical leaders (James Dobson, Tony Perkins, etc.) are gathering for a private retreat in Texas this weekend to decide collectively which GOP presidential candidate they should endorse. They decided to do this because the current frontrunner in the campaign, Mitt Romney, is apparently not Christian enough (i.e., their particular brand of Christian) to successfully run the country.

The Christian right is possibly the most infuriating group of people (from a political standpoint) I can think of. They will endorse a candidate solely based on who they perceive to be most closely in line with their religious beliefs. News flash: America is not a theocracy. We are not electing the senior pastor of your church – we’re electing the chief executive of our country. What a person believes religiously should have no bearing on his or her ability to be a civil leader.

Furthermore, I disagree with endorsing a candidate based solely on his social agenda. Funny how “social conservative” has come to mean, basically, being anti-gay rights and anti-choice. The religious right calls these “family values.” I would counter that these are not family values at all. There is nothing pro-family about not allowing legal marriage between two people who love each other. There is nothing pro-family about forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term when her own health is at risk. Now, if these are the issues upon which an individual voter casts his or her ballot, fine - that is a personal choice. But when widely known faith leaders endorse a candidate based on these issues and then ask their congregants to follow suit… that is, frankly, a misuse of power and influence.

During Jesus’ life, he purposely stayed OUT of politics. My message to these 150 evangelical church leaders is that, publicly, you should too. Give your congregants some credit. They’re smart enough to identify the issues that THEY deem to be most important, and vote accordingly.