Gay marriage rights overdue in Maine

The Cold, Hart Truth: Obama should lift ban on openly gay in military

President Obama has often been praised, appropriately, for his leadership and charisma. Indeed, these have served him well both on the campaign trail and in the policy arena. When the American people demanded action on the economy, the White House and Congress worked to pass the stimulus package. Leadership, however, is easier in some areas than others. When there is not a strong constituency for a particular policy, even when it is both pragmatic and just, strong leadership is necessary.

The Cold, Hart Truth: GOP: Adapt or die

The political world is abuzz this week with the news of Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic party. It has come so quickly that we do not yet fully know what it means, but the GOP certainly cannot feel good about it. Specter's votes will probably not differ that much, and this will probably keep a more liberal Democrat out of the Senate in 2010 (PA was poised to go blue with Specter looking weak against primary opponent Pat Toomey). Still, this is not much of a silver lining for Republicans, as what was left of any "big tent" they could claim to have once had is quickly collapsing.

The Cold, Hart Truth

Gay marriage rights overdue in Maine

This piece represents the opinion of the author:

April 17, 2009

On Wednesday, April 22, the Maine Legislature's Joint Committee on the Judiciary will take up hearings on what has become the defining civil rights issue of our time: same-sex marriage. A large crowd is expected; indeed, projections are so large that the hearing has been moved to the Augusta Civic Center to allow for a greater seating capacity. Many Bowdoin students have been working on this campaign in one way or another, and some on both sides of the issue may even attend the hearing (it is open to the public).

A few years ago, when Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, the entire country was inundated with constant shouts that it would be the end of civilization and that the institution of marriage was forever damaged.

Now, as the years have passed, it is apparent that this projected outcome was absurd. Heterosexual couples did not stop getting married, having children, or carrying on any other activities we might associate with traditional notions of family. Citizens kept going to work and paying their taxes. Crime rates did not spike and in fact, they have gone down in Massachusetts in the post-marriage legalization years. In short, the societal collapse that anti-marriage forces predicted has not happened.

Now, more and more states are realizing that marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples are long overdue. Why do we continue to insist that loving partners cannot file taxes together, visit each other in hospitals, or make medical decisions when one partner is incapable of doing so? Why do we insist that if one partner dies without a will, the other partner be completely cast out of the process? Ultimately, it is fear and hatred for those different from us, combined with bigotry from religious groups.

Of course, religion is a touchy subject in this debate. There are religious institutions that believe homosexuality to be immoral conduct, and would in no way condone same-sex marriage. These beliefs are their right.

That said, no one is asking churches or other religious groups to perform or even recognize these unions. All that is desired is for the state, a supposedly non-religious entity, to do so. Indeed, the bill that is before the Maine legislature is titled "An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage, and to Affirm Religious Freedom." And it specifically notes that religious institutions would not be required to recognize same-sex marriages if they so choose.

All that said, in a free society we should not be imposing our religion on others through law. Proselytize all you want on your own time, but leave legislative debate out of it. Considering the body of empirical evidence suggesting that, in fact, the sky did not fall after same-sex couples started getting married, it seems as though the only arguments against same-sex marriage now are religious arguments. Legislators should not be placing the religious beliefs of some above the rights of all when considering legislation, particularly when there is no tangible effect on the bulk of individuals opposing the measure.

Those who, even considering that their own religious institutions will not be affected, still oppose the bill should ask themselves a few questions. Can they think of any time since the legalization of same-sex marriage began that they felt a genuine threat to their own marriages or relationships? Will they love their husbands, wives, boyfriends, or girlfriends any less because same-sex couples have married in some states? Do they face any personal harm, be it physical or economic, when same-sex couples marry? Opponents of the bill should do some soul-searching before making up their minds.

If you answered yes to any of these questions, try getting out and meeting some same-sex couples. Spend some time together. You will find that they are responsible citizens, loving parents, and good people like the vast majority of Maine's citizens. You might even think twice about preventing the state from recognizing their love. If at the end of the day, you still oppose marriage equality, you can at least say that you had the courage to face those whom your position will affect.

Maine has a wonderful opportunity to be a leader in the civil rights arena. We can join Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa and be remembered as one of the first states to fully recognize the rights of same-sex couples. It won't be easy. It will take communication, calls to legislators, and vocal support. If we do this, however, Maine will be remembered as being on the right side of history when popular opinion was not. It is a time to move forward, not back.

Comments are permanently closed.