I believe that marriage, like all other rights, services, and recognitions, should be available to all citizens. As a Democrat, I tend to support more involvement from local and state governments, but on this issue, I agree with the typically Republican mantra, “less government intervention in our lives.” State governments should not be able to tell us who we can marry.
Last Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned a state law banning same-sex marriage, deeming the law unconstitutional. The decision was a major success for gay rights advocates, the first of its kind in the Midwest. Yet New England remains the center of the same-sex marriage movement. Massachusetts and Connecticut already allow gay marriage. Vermont and New Hampshire legislatures have approved relevant bills and are waiting for them to be signed into law.
Surprisingly, New York State is not included in this movement and remains far behind its progressive neighbors. Although Governor Paterson and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are both in favor of a law allowing same-sex marriages, a Republican-controlled state Senate has, for the past several years, blocked any such bill from passing. Supporters looked with optimism upon last November’s elections results, which put Democrats in control of the Senate, but the New York State Legislature has still shown no signs of passing a bill of this kind. There are still five or six Democrats who oppose same-sex marriage, and thus the issue seems to have been removed from the agendas of Democrats in Albany. One such Democrat, Rubén Díaz Sr., a Pentecostal minister from the Bronx, suggested that the assurance that there would be no vote on same-sex marriage this year was a part of the negotiations that led him to support Malcolm A. Smith, a Queens Democrat, as the new Senate majority leader.
How should New York or any state proceed so as to guarantee this right equally to all citizens? It seems to me that a large number of people who oppose same-sex marriage do so because of simple semantics. The word “marriage” retains a religious connotation, and some religious beliefs or organizations maintain a conservative outlook on what should constitute a marriage. Therefore, I have recently been intrigued by the bold and creative idea to remove this religiously connoted institution from the state altogether. If personal beliefs prevent us from offering the same state-sanctioned legal rights to all people, then why not equally deny the right to everyone?
On March 16, Time Magazine published an opinion piece supporting this idea that said, “There is no baptism certificate issued by the local courthouse and no federal tax benefit attached to the confessional booth ... only marriage gets that treatment.” The article cites law professors and advocates who suggest that states simply issue “civil unions” for all couples, gay or straight.
In an opinion piece in the Los Angles Times last October, CEO of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center Lorri L. Jean, supported this idea as well, explaining, “I would be perfectly fine if the state were to get out of the business of licensing marriages.” She argued that the fight for same-sex marriages has diverted too many necessary resources from real state issues like poverty and education, and she supports civil unions for all. Presumably, these civil unions would need to guarantee an increased level of legal protection equal to the rights now afforded to state-issued marriages.
This opinion does not require removing religion from the institution of marriage. Churches, as private institutions, could still decide which marriages they perform or sanction. A number of religious groups perform same-sex union ceremonies, including the Episcopal Church, the Lutheran Church, United Church of Christ, and Reform Judaism. Churches that do not support same-sex marriages wouldn’t have to perform them. In this way, all individuals, gay or straight, could belong to and support the private institutions with which their values align while the state maintains equal rights and protection of all citizens despite religious beliefs and practices. Some argue that it is impossible to untangle religious values from our civic environment. I say, maybe it’s worth a try.
Columbia students can and should continue to ponder the most appropriate solutions to this issue either by urging Bloomberg and Paterson to pressure Albany to consider a bill that allows same-sex marriage or by thinking creatively about alternative solutions to guarantee equality under the law.
MaryAlice Parks is a Columbia College senior majoring in history and political science. She is a co-coordinator of Artists Reaching Out. The Albright runs alternate Tuesdays. opinion@columbiaspectator.com