ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, May 28, 1996 TAG: 9605290014
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: Ellen Goodman
DATELINE: BOSTON
SOURCE: ELLEN GOODMAN
Memo to the Congress: Thanks for thinking of me, but I don't need you to defend my marriage. My husband and I can handle that ourselves.
Spare me ``The Defense of Marriage Act'' label on a bill banning same-sex marriages. The name implies that the value of heterosexual marriages goes down once you let homosexuals into the institution. There goes the neighborhood.
I don't buy this realtor's view of relationships. Gay and lesbian couples who want to wed aren't trying to assail the grounds for marriage. They're trying to share them. If anything, they want to stabilize the gay community.
This defense act dreamed up by the Republican right is a mischievous, gratuitous attempt to find a wedge in the political tool box. And now that President Clinton has promised to sign it, we ought to call it The Protection of Political Flank Act.
That said, I still want to ask how we ever got to the point where the dominant gay rights issue of 1996 is marriage. You couldn't pick a more volatile terrain.
We are all over the map on gay rights issues. There are places in America where it is still illegal to have same-sex sex, let alone marriage.
On Tuesday the Supreme Court ruled that a state couldn't ban civil rights protections for homosexuals. But that isn't the same as extending their rights. Even so, the ruling entailed a knock-down fight between justices that had Scalia sputtering about gays with ``high disposable income'' and ``political power much greater than their numbers.''
(Dear Antonin: If you want them to lose some of that high disposable income, encourage them to raise kids.)
Frankly, the wedding alarm bells sound like a diversion. There's lots of good old-fashioned discrimination going around in housing and jobs. There are plenty of hate crimes. And if you think that the issue of gays in the military has been resolved, don't ask and don't tell them that.
The whole matter came up only because the Hawaii Supreme Court is likely to overrule the ban against same-sex marriage just in time for the summer political conventions. About 34 states have seen bills hastily introduced so they won't have to recognize couples returning from a Honolulu honeymoon.
I'm not surprised at the hostility fueling these bills. But among gay activists, too, the issue has jumped to the front. The marital cart is now before the gay rights horse. Or if you prefer a different metaphor, remember the one offered by a gay lawyer, ``You don't build the penthouse until you've constructed the first 19 floors.''
I have no doubt that there is gradual, growing acceptance of gay rights in courts and communities and corporations. There is acceptance of relationships--from the couple in ``The Birdcage,'' to the two mommies at school, to our own families.
The reactions to a coming-out announcement now often range across generations from shocked grandparents to concerned parents to brothers, sisters and cousins who already figured it out. And just hope he or she meets someone nice.
We now have seen commitment ceremonies in church and domestic partner registries in town halls. Two months ago there was mass near-marriage in San Francisco--the highlights of which are sure to appear on some religious-right videotape.
But there's still enormous opposition in the country to same-sex marriages. Any attempt to leapfrog to the altar is likely to end in a fall. Or produce a Defense Act.
The Defense of Marriage Act should be shelved. The most regressive part of the bill in terms of the everyday life of gay couples may not be that it bans marriage but that it prohibits partners from receiving federal benefits.
If I were Clinton, equally opposed to same-sex marriage and to alienating gay voters, I'd suggest that we do what many Fortune 500 companies do. Make sure that couples are awarded economic benefits and protections as domestic partners.
I know, the last time I suggested this, I received many letters, including a high-spirited one from two women offended by my `conservatism.' We don't want to be second-class citizens, they wrote: ``If people don't like us getting married, they don't have to send a gift.''
What I'm worried about isn't the bone china. It's the backlash.
- The Boston Globe
LENGTH: Medium: 82 linesby CNB