Featured Story December 2007
Same-Sex Couples
The Struggle for Civil Rights
by Elizabeth H. Florio
Few topics (with the exceptions of the war in Iraq and abortion) bring up such a marked polarity in the American viewpoint than the issue of homosexual marriage and whether homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. The topic is widely debated in religious and political arenas. In many cases, the discussions turn contentious. Although there is much more to being gay than legal marriages and securing (at minimum) the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual people, this is a highly important issue and one that will be dealt with more frequently in the years to come.
A MATTER OF POLITICS?
The core issue at hand is whether gay, lesbian, and transgender people deserve the same treatment and benefits that others in this country enjoy. For the Religious Right, recognizing same-sex unions by the word “marriage,” with all of its implications—from housing, benefits and jobs to equal protection by the law—is akin to destroying family values and maligning God’s design. In their eyes, homosexuals are an aberration and should not be allowed to marry, much less exist. The Religious Right largely views gayness as a willful and sin-based choice that sets gay people outside of God’s and society’s protection.
The rant spewed forth by Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, after the 9/11 attacks is a perfect example. He placed responsibility for the attacks on the American Civil Liberties Union, feminists, gays, and abortionists because he said, in essence, that their hedonism had provoked God’s wrath. This viewpoint is extreme, but somewhat softer variations of this message can be found on many religious Web sites. What’s evident is that many people feel compelled to save the world from homosexuality and will use whatever political and legal processes they can to further this effort.
On the People for the American Way Web site, in an article titled Anti-Gay Politics and the Religious Right, it states: “Anti-gay politics have long been at the core of Religious Right fundraising and organizing efforts.” In an equally compelling article on the Boston Phoenix Web site, the journalist Kristen Lombardi elaborates in her article The Catholic War against Gay Marriage: “Much of the lobbying from Catholic priests and parishioners opposed to full equality for gay and lesbian couples has been routine: petitions and postcards delivered to the State House coupled with phone calls and e-mails from parishioners to their legislators.”
For other people who make no declarations of religious zealotry, the issue is about securing the rights of a small percentage of people who are not currently given the same treatment and rights as others in this country. The current laws of the majority of the states in the U.S., as they pertain to same-sex couples, are discriminatory and run counter to the values and freedoms that this country claims to protect and hold so dear.
By not offering same-sex couples identical rights earned by other minorities through the over two-hundred-plus years of bloodshed and struggle in this country, aren’t we, in essence, telling them that they are second-class citizens? Yes, we are. Shelby Florio, a young woman from the San Francisco Bay area, states it plainly: “There is no turning back for gay people now. We either fight this, or we lose everything and return to the dark ages where it was acceptable to simply kill people who didn’t fit the prevailing standard.”
Gay rights are very much at the forefront of political candidates’ minds. Over the last several years, there has been some positive movement toward at least granting civil union recognition to same-sex couples. Like any issue, however, there are two (or more) sides to the topic and there are some very strong forces at work that often play out as polar and hostile opposites. Almost all of the 2008 Democratic candidates have called for the end of the detrimental “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Few candidates, however, are willing to risk the political fall-out from openly supporting same-sex marriage—even if they believe in it.
Reporter Rick Klein, in his article Pursuing the Gay Vote, Without Supporting Gay Marriage (from the ABC News Web site), states that “The Democratic presidential candidates have begun to aggressively court gay and lesbian voters with unprecedented outreach.” Although many Americans seem to feel that this swing toward an open dialogue about gay rights is a positive move, the fact that so many candidates are falling short of supporting same-sex marriage itself represents an ongoing stumbling block. Other than Mayor Gavin Newsom’s attack on the unconstitutionality of the State’s stance on marriage in 2004, no other prominent politician has openly supported gay people nor has challenged discriminatory laws.
Despite many positive efforts toward securing rights for same-sex couples, the Human Rights Campaign Web site (as of November 10, 2007) states that “hostile amendments are currently being considered by legislators in nine states: Alaska, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Washington, and West Virginia.” The site also lists twenty-six states with constitutional amendments and laws that restrict marriage to one man and one woman. They are: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Additionally, 19 states restrict marriage to one man and one woman by law: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Only one state in the U.S. currently supports same-sex marriage and that is Massachusetts.
“IT’S ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS”
Chris Hanks and Peter Consello of San Francisco, both in their 40s, are in a loving, long-term, and deeply committed relationship. They have been together for eleven years, have owned two houses in San Francisco and own a very successful Bed and Breakfast on California’s 
North Coast. They also happily took part in the 2004 wedding ceremonies that Mayor Newsom allowed.
Like other same-sex couples, Chris and Peter both feel that the question of gay rights is not so much a political issue as it is about civil rights. Hanks states: “This is not an appropriate issue for the voting masses to weigh, judge, and then cast a ballot over; this is simply an issue of equal rights for all. The fact that people can’t see it as such is very puzzling and upsetting to me. Considering what this country has been through with securing rights for other minorities, I find it appalling that few people seem willing or able to consider gay rights in the same vein.”
Much of Europe, even heavily Catholic countries like Spain, have grasped the fact that giving same-sex couples legal recognition or even marriage rights does not bring down the moral fiber of society, cause any additional problems for the culture, or disrupt heterosexual people. Because Hanks was born and raised in Germany, he has a slightly different take on the topic due to his exposure to European thought.
“Europeans demonstrate much less concern than Americans over what other people do in private,” he says. “A great number of people in this country are obsessed with other people’s sex lives. Look at the recent, disastrous 60 Minutes interview in which French President Sarkozy abruptly walks out on journalist Lesley Stahl when the reporter asked about his wife. In Europe, private matters remain private. As long as you aren’t bothering anyone, what you do in your home is nobody’s business. People do not show poor taste in asking about one’s personal affairs in Europe. It just isn’t done. So, Europeans largely allow gay people the same dignity and privacy.”
The countries that offer a legal status to same-sex partners which confers most or all spousal rights to them (also known as “registered partnership”) are Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. The countries that offer legal status (also known as “unregistered cohabitation”), which confers certain spousal rights to same-sex couples and, in some of these countries, unmarried opposite-sex couples, are: Brazil, Canada, Croatia, France, Hungary, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, parts of Mexico, and Switzerland.
Clearly, many same-sex couples feel that there’s a central culprit standing in the way of granting gay people basic civil rights. It’s religion. The prevailing religion of this land, Christianity, is, for the most part, unequivocally negative on the topic of homosexuality. For gay people, many of whom were raised Christian and grew up loving their religion, this position is very difficult to cope with. To be told that you are, in essence, less than everyone else because of what many gay people feel is something they are born with is akin to telling someone they are less than others due to the color of their skin. Nonetheless, there is a clear message from the church. For many people, the church’s rigid doctrine is to blame for causing so much misunderstanding and prejudice about gay life.
The real question here is this—do gay, lesbian, and transgender people deserve the same treatment and marriage benefits that others in this country enjoy? As the debate actively rages on in political and religious circles and the press, we can safely assume that it will be a topic of discussion, debate, and legislative activity for some time to come. It’s unlikely that gay people will just accept whatever legislation is decided on their behalf if that legislation contains anything less than full rights for all. On the other hand, it’s equally unlikely that if same-sex couples win their rights, it will be the last we hear from groups who are against homosexual and transgender lifestyles.
Same-sex couples have a monumental struggle ahead of them to win the rights enjoyed by other Americans. Politicizing gay rights, although it is becoming more necessary, is not viewed by many homosexuals as the best approach because they feel that the issue is about civil rights, not politics. For other groups, like the Religious Right, there can be no discussion at all because gay people don’t warrant consideration.
Wherever a person falls on the spectrum of opinion with regard to the issue of equal rights for gay and lesbian citizens, it is clear that we all have an opportunity in this country to show the world that we know how to lovingly let people be—without judging them nor denying their right to live and love how they wish.
Elizabeth H. Florio-Casey is a published writer living in Ferndale, California. Her book of poems, Breaking the Sacred, was published in 1999. She currently runs a successful writing business–ButterFat Publishing & Writing Services, Inc. She can be reached at liz@butterfatdp.com
Two Decades of Struggle
The following is a brief overview of the most pivotal legal occurrences in the
American gay rights movement over the last 20 years:
1982 - Wisconsin becomes the first state in the U.S. to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
1993 - The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is instituted for the U.S. military, permitting gays to serve, but banning homosexual activity. President Clinton’s original intent to revoke the prohibition against gays in the military was met with stiff opposition; this compromise led to the discharge of thousands of men and women in the armed forces.
1996 - IIn Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court strikes down Colorado’s Amendment 2, which denied gays and lesbians protection against discrimination.
2000 -Vermont becomes the first state in the country to legally recognize civil unions between gay and lesbian couples. The law states that these “couples would be entitled to the same benefits, privileges, and responsibilities as spouses.”
2003 - The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws in the U.S. are unconstitutional.
2003 - The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that barring gays and lesbians from marrying violates the state constitution. The Massachusetts Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage” to gay couples was unconstitutional because it denied “the dignity and equality of all individuals” and made them “second-class citizens.”
2004 - On May 17, same-sex marriages become legal in Massachusetts.
2004 - The Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, allows same-sex marriages to take place despite state laws. The Web site SF Gate reports that the Mayor defended his actions by stating: “A little more than a month ago, I took the oath of office here at City Hall and swore to uphold California’s Constitution, which clearly outlaws all forms of discrimination.’’
2005 - Civil unions become legal in Connecticut.
2006 - Civil unions become legal in New Jersey.
Gay Rights Around the World
The following is a brief timeline of how international countries have handled
the issue of same-sex marriage thus far:
1989 - Denmark becomes the first country to legalize same-sex partnerships.
1991 - Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and France legalize same-sex partnerships.
2001 - The Netherlands becomes the first country to legalize same-sex marriages, with Belgium following suit in 2003 and Spain in 2005.
2003 - The Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia start the trend to legalize same-sex marriage with numerous other provinces following suit in 2004.
2005 - The Canadian parliament passes a bill legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the country.