Gay Rights

Running Head: GAY RIGHTS: WHY EVERY CITIZEN IN A STAKEHOLDER IN THE OUTCOME








Gay Rights: Why Every Citizen is a Stakeholder
In the Outcome

Student name
School name
Gay Rights: Why Every Citizen is a Stakeholder in the Outcome
In the final decade of the 20th Century two governmental decisions propelled the issue of gay rights to the forefront. The first of these was the 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court decision challenging the ban on same gender marriage. The ruling was based on the violation of the state’s equal protection clause. The second event was the passage of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 (DOMA, Public Law No. 104-119, 110 Stat. 2419). Standing on opposite sides of the issue of gay rights, these two decisions would begin in earnest the battle for civil rights and protection for citizens of the gay and lesbian community. They would spark the debates and decisions that continue to challenge individuals, communities and the nation, particularly the questions surrounding the “rightness” or “wrongness” of a gay relationship. What has developed over the past 18 years is the dangerous trend of private opinion and conviction becoming the purview of the government. The public concern should be whether a governmental body or business entity should deny any citizen full and equal rights.
While the topic of gay rights encompasses a wide range of issues, marriage equality has taken center stage. The questions surrounding whether gay couples should be allowed to be legally married seem to focus on the “rightness” or “wrongness” of a gay relationship. Those who oppose the legal rituals and recognition of same-sex couples base their position on moral or religious grounds upon which they build social commentary. Often these opponents pontificate on the subject from the position of complete lack of knowledge or compassion. Their claims revolve around the assumptions that only two people of the opposite sex should love one another. They selectively quote religious doctrine as the standard by which all humans should live. From there, they make moral judgments and illogical social conclusions regarding the nature of same-sex relationships. These opponents simply miss the point that this is not a religious debate – it is a legal one.
Some of the more frequent opinions, often presented as facts, include that lack of “commitment” in gay relationships, high promiscuity, health risks, and derogatory influences on children (Dailey, 2009). Opponents go to great lengths to objectify and demonize homosexuals as deviants and predators without bothering to actually gather any real data. The purposes of these types of comments about people who are different are based on lack of knowledge, lack of compassion or both. The reasons for stating them are a reflection of internal fear or for the purpose of generating fear in others. By using these methods, opponents have imbued a public policy question regarding civil rights with highly charged, personal feelings. The same strategies were used in the past regarding the issues of women’s right to vote and racial segregation, just to name two examples.
Along with their improbable conclusions that strain the logical reasoning skills of the human mind, opponents also capitalize on the listener’s fear response. This is an age-old tactic used by those in a position of power for convincing others of an opinion and garnering support for an agenda. It is particularly effective if the speaker ties their opinion to a personal aspect that the listener holds dear, such as religious conviction, family, society and so forth. Those in opposition to gay marriage have demonstrated great skill in fanning the flames of fear about homosexuality.
If this “morality,” based on ignorance and fear, is removed from the question of gay marriage, there are no legitimate reasons for the opposition. Whether gay marriage is right or wrong becomes a moot point. The real question to focus upon is whether a government should discriminate against its citizens. For any thinking person, the resounding answer to this is “No.” If the government is allowed to discriminate against one class of people, then no one is safe!
There have been increasingly vocal and offensive efforts on the part of several organized religions in the last few decades to influence personal opinion and public policy. According to the Pew Research Center, the leaders of this movement are the Catholic Church and the evangelical Christian sects. The results of a 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life indicate that attendance at worship services seems to correlate with personal opinion about this issue (Masci, 2009). The survey found that “55% of Americans oppose gay marriage, with 36% favoring it” without factoring in church attendance (Masci). However, “those with a high frequency of church attendance oppose it by a substantially higher margin [of] 73% in opposition versus 21% in favor” (Masci). It further found that the evangelical white Christians, regardless of church attendance, expressed an 81% disapproval rate (Masci). This data reflects not only the intensity of the opposition’s conviction but also the murky blending of personal opinion with public policy.
Part and parcel of the opposition’s argument heard time and again is the “concern” for the “sanctity of marriage.” Rachel Maddow, host of a top-rated show on MSNBC, shared the following facts on this subject. In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licenses to same gender couples. Statistics for this time period indicated that the divorce rate was 2.2 per thousand (straight) marriages. As of 2008, the divorce rate in Massachusetts, which now included same gender couples, had dropped to 2.0 per thousand – the lowest divorce rate for the state since 1940. About this phenomenon, Maddow states, “Awkwardly, gay marriage is a defense of marriage act” (Maddow, n.d.).
The recent Iowa Supreme Court decision on April 3, 2009, which upheld a lower court finding that “there was no important governmental interest in denying citizens marriage licenses based on sexual orientation” (Perkins, 2009), sparked many critical comments across the country. This is the same legal basis used by the Supreme Court in Hawaii to make their decision in 1993. The Iowa court decision had the effect of nullifying the state’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defined marriage as a legally recognized contract between a man and a woman only. Tony Perkins of Family Research Council stated, “DOMA is our only protection against same-sex marriage. The rogue judges [with this decision] open the door to other redefinitions of marriage…. There are no grounds to deny three people the right to marry, or the right of an adult and a minor to marry” (Perkins). Again, these types of comments pander to the unsubstantiated fear among individuals who are not aware of, or refuse to consider, a more realistic “picture” of same gender relationships.
Unfortunately, the most heinous legislative attack on the freedom of gay citizens is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419). This federal law, passed in 1996, legalizes discrimination throughout the federal and state levels of the United States. Under this law, the federal government may not recognize same-sex relationships as marriages regardless of state law. Also, the individual states are free to disavow a same-sex marriage from another state where the relationship is recognized as legal (Cohen, 2011). This seems to stand at the edge of absurdity considering the fact that states honor each other’s driver’s licenses!
Fortunately, the Obama administration has recently issued a statement directing the Justice Department to stop defending DOMA. The federal law banning recognition of same gender marriage is unconstitutional. Attorney General Eric Holder commented on the Congressional debate during the passage of DOMA in 1996, stating “[DOMA] contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against” (“Obama: DOMA,” 2011, para. 2).
Some states have taken the politically moderate posture of adopting state versions of DOMA but retaining the option of “civil union” for same-sex couples. Depending on the state, the levels of rights included vary. The reaction to the term “civil union” does not carry the emotional reaction among marriage equality opponents, and some have even expressed approval for this concept. It is met with mixed responses in the gay community for two main reasons.
The first reason in the gay and lesbian community is based on the failed racial civil rights issue of “separate but equal.” These laws allowed segregation based on race, which is simply a turn-of-phrase for discrimination. It was also the basis for the anti-miscegenation laws that prohibited marriage between races. Both discriminatory laws were overturned in the 1960’s (Library of Congress, 2011). This current civil rights issue with gay marriage seems to have resuscitated this flawed concept if same-sex couples do not have access to full marriage rights and must be satisfied with the “separate but equal” civil union.
The second reason in the gay and lesbian community is the hesitance gay citizens have for exposing themselves by registering for a civil union with their partners. Without full protection under the law, and discrimination statutes on the books, it could have negative employment repercussions among other results. There are little or no financial or “family” benefits with the lesser designation. The fact that the general public feels that they have the right to vehemently condemn a gay relationship, and the government can legally discriminate against the entire class, keeps many committed couples from availing themselves of this second-rate option.
Without the full benefit of legally recognized marriage on the state and federal level, gay and lesbian couples are denied rights and protections enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts. These include Social Security benefits, health insurance inclusion, estate tax breaks, hospital visitation, family leave options, pension plan participation, as well as some 1100 federal benefits. Exclusion from these “married spouse” rights is based solely on the fact that the couple is of the same gender. While some states offer a variation of these with passage of marriage equality/civil union recognition, the field is still not level.
Another critical family issue in the gay rights struggle is the ability for same gender couples to adopt children. In a poll conducted by the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions at Nashville’s Vanderbilt University, 64 per cent of the state’s poll participants were either opposed or strongly opposed to adoption rights for gay and lesbian couples (Vanderbilt University, 2010). As stated by a citizen in an interview with a local newspaper, “I just believe the traditional family is what’s best” (Rau, 2011, para. 8). This comment reflects several weaknesses in the opposition’s position on this gay rights issue. First, “I believe” is not a foundation upon which to build a legal opinion about the civil rights of one’s fellow citizens. Secondly, “traditional family” is one of those vague and ambiguous phrases that do not stand up under scrutiny. For example, the divorce rate of opposite gender marriages (which one assumes is the meaning of the interviewee’s phrase) is now above the 50% mark. This means that all those children raised in single parent homes are somehow being disadvantaged. Lastly, the term “best” could and should be legitimately applied to any home where a child is loved, valued, respected, and encouraged to reach their potential. Certainly, opposite gender marriage is not a prerequisite for that!
Opponents play the same record about the “rightness” or “wrongness” of gay relationships and add an additional verse. This verse is perhaps the most onerous because it vilifies all gays and lesbians. It sounds something like this: Gay people are deviants; gay couples are not real families; gay people are a bad influence on children, gay parents might make their children gay, and on, and on… It bears repeating that all these and similarly constructed comments are based on fear, misunderstanding, ignorance, and/or just plain bigotry. The have no resemblance to the facts and thus serve no purpose other than to diminish the lives of loving and committed couples.
As it so happens, the facts reveal quite a different reality. The first longitudinal study of the effects of same gender parenting on the development of children has been completed. As stated by the research authors, the purpose of this study was “to investigate the extent to which parents’ sexual orientation is associated with development of young children placed early in life with adoptive parents to whom they are not biologically related” (Farr, Forssell, & Patterson, p. 166). The results are irrefutable – “young children adopted early in life by lesbian and gay parents were as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents” (Farr, Forssell, & Patterson, 2010, p. 175). To state the findings another way – kids raised in homes with gay parents are doing just as well as their peers in homes with a male and female parent!
The Farr, Forssell and Patterson (2010) study also “discovered” what every parent, teacher and childcare giver already knows. The variables that can negatively affect any child’s development have to do with “parenting stress, parenting approaches, and couple relationship adjustment” (p. 164). These variables “were found to be significantly associated with children’s adjustment regardless of parental sexual orientation” (p. 164). The unique contribution of this work is found in the fact-based results of how actual children are developing in the care of same gender homes. As it turns out, the kids really are all right.
Beyond silencing the critics, this study has further implications for the lives of hundreds of thousands of children. There are reportedly “500,000 children in the child welfare system and over 100,000 children currently waiting to be adopted” (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008). The findings of the Farr, Forssell and Patterson (2010) study could considerably widen the options for finding permanent placement for children in need of a home and loving parents. It is unimaginable that any critic would prefer that children remain in an overburdened and less than satisfactory home environment when there are other viable options.
Children thrive in a loving and supportive environment. These latest findings are just the validation needed to stop the discriminatory practices of preventing gay and lesbian couples from adopting. “Regardless of parental sexual orientation, parents who reported less parenting stress, use of more effective disciplinary techniques, and greater happiness in their couple relationships had children who were described as well-adjusted. Thus, our results provide further evidence that family process variables are more closely tied to child outcomes than is family structure” (Farr, Forssell, & Patterson, 2010, p. 175).
Closely related to the issues of marriage and family are the rights of gay and lesbian citizens to live safely and work productively in society. While the center-stage struggle for marriage equality has resulted in the passage of same gender marriage licenses in five states and the District of Columbia, and several states allow for same gender adoption, community safety and workplace equity cling to a slippery slope. One example of difficulty in securing equal rights for gays and lesbian is the twelve-year battle required to pass the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA). This legislation was first introduced in 1997 and signed into law in 2009 by President Obama.
This particular law “gives the Department of Justice (DOJ) the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated violence by providing the DOJ with jurisdiction over crimes of violence where a perpetrator has selected a victim because of the person's actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability” (Human Rights Campaign, 2010, para. 3). While some of the groups were already considered a protected class, neither sexual orientation nor gender identity were prior to the passage of HCPA.
The HRC (2010) explains the importance of this law with the following statements: “A hate crime occurs when the perpetrator of a crime intentionally selects a victim because of who the victim is.  Hate crimes rend the fabric of our society and fragment communities because they target an entire community or group of people, not just the individual victim” (para. 2). It is progress to now have legal recognition and protection for these acts against the gay and lesbian community, but there are miles to go to reach the extinction of hate related bias. No one could feasibly argue that law-abiding citizens should live in fear.
Workplace equity and the ability to seek and prosper in the economic community are also values that all citizens hold dear. The unfortunate truth in the lives of many gays and lesbians runs contrary to these values. Many live in fear of others “finding out” their sexual orientation because it could jeopardize their employment. Others do not have the option of carrying family health insurance or retirement benefits because their partners do not qualify as “family.” There are also other gay and lesbian individuals who fear the reprisals of harassment from coworkers and even superiors regardless of exemplary job performance. Again, what critic could rationally argue that being gay is a valid reason for these disparities? Perhaps there are positive, subtle advancements in this area of gay rights as evidenced by the recent beginning steps to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This discriminatory policy directly affected the lives of every gay and lesbian member of the United States military every day of their lives.
In conclusion, there are many that would, and will continue to, question the “need” and/or “desirability” of righting the imbalances for gay and lesbian individuals. As evidenced above, it is in the best interests of all citizens of this country for civil rights to be equitably available to everyone. The question of whether gay marriage is right or wrong should be left to private discussions. The danger occurs, whether recognized or not, when private opinion and conviction become the purview of the government. It is not the business of public policy to deny equal protection under the law to any of its citizens. It is even more egregious when laws, such as DOMA, are instituted and applied with differing “treatment or concern based on class or category rather than individual merit” (Merriam-Webster, 2011). The latter is, by the way, the definition of discrimination. The public concern should be whether a government can deny its citizens full and equal rights. If all law-abiding citizens do not enjoy the same freedoms, then no one is free.

References

Cohen, A. (2011, February 23). 10 takeaways from Obama’s DOMA reversal. Retrieved from The Atlantic website: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive /2011/02/10-takeaways-from-obamas-doma-reversal/71633/
Dailey, T. J. (2009, May 25). Comparing the lifestyles of homosexual couples to married couples. Retrieved March 7, 2011 from Family Research Council website: http://www.frc.org /get.cfm?i=IS04C02
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2011). Discrimination.
Farr, R., Forssell, S. L., & Patterson, C. (2010). Parenting and child development in adoptive families: Does parental sexual orientation matter? Applies Developmental Science, 14(3), 164-178. doi: 10.1080/10888691.2010.500958
Human Rights Campaign. (2010, June 28). Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Retrieved March 6, 2011 from website https://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/5660.htm
Library of Congress. (2011). Separate but equal. Retrieved March 5, 2011 from website http://www.loc.gov
Maddow, R. (n.d). The reality of marriage equality. Retrieved March 7, 2011 from MSNBC website: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show
Masci, D. (2009, November 21). An overview of the same-sex marriage debate. Retrieved March 6, 2011 from The Pew Forum website: http://pewforum.org/docs /?DocID=288
Obama: DOMA unconstitutional, DOJ should stop defending in court. (2011, February 24). Retrieved March 5, 2011 from The Huffington Post website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/obama-doma-unconstitutional_n_827134.html
Perkins, T. (2009, April 6). State of marriage. Retrieved March 6, 2011 from Family Research Council website: http://www.frc.org/special/state-of-marriage
Rau, N. (2011, February 9). Poll: Tennesseans back gays in military but oppose adoption, marriage. Retrieved March 5, 2011 from The Tennessean website: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/feb/09/poll-tennesseans-back-gays-military-oppose-adoptio/
U. S. Department of Health. (2008). Office of Population Affairs. Retrieved March 6, 2011 from website http://www.hhs.gov/opa/general-resources/adoption/
Vanderbilt University. (2010). Center for the study of democratic institutions. Retrieved March 5, 2011 from website http://www.vanderbilt.edu/csdi/