Social progress defines a people’s or a culture’s ability to adapt to changes in the moral landscape of the city, state or country. For more than 200 years, the United States has demonstrated an uncanny ability to overcome such divisive issues such as; slavery, the women’s right to vote, prohibition, civil rights, equal employment, and a host of equally important milestones, providing the level playing field the citizens of the U.S. enjoy today.

However, the same people with the same “moral fiber” who protested for these social changes of the 60’s and 70’s, today we are waging a new battle, they use techniques learned from those of the 50’s, one word is tantamount DISCRIMINATION, hoping to win this time around. Gay Marriage, germane to the conversation, but rarely touched upon in the debate pertains to marriage in the United States being a religious event, but sanctioned by the state; in this case, at the state, not national level. The actual occurrence taking place is not a debate about whether homosexuals can get “married”, but instead, another blurring of the line between religion and state at the federal level.

A marriage, a religious ceremony, because it is sanctioned by the state, entitles the individuals being united to certain rights and privileges. Most notably: hospital visitation, insurance coverage, adoptions, estate / tax issues and children. But in several states, common law disregards any religious covenant and states that a man and a woman sharing the same dwelling for a certain period of time shall be considered “married”. In this instance, a church sanctioning the civil union of the couple bears no relevance to how they are viewed under the rule of law. Likewise, in issues pertaining to the state’s treatment of homosexual civil unions, the lack of church sanctioning should not surrender the state’s agreement under common law simply because the two people happen to be of the same gender. In other words, under common law, the state recognizes two people of a different gender to be married, but two people of the same gender are not. This is discrimination.

Because individual states, not the federal government, sanction marriage, individuals in each state can use the constitutionally protected right to sue their government for redress of grievances. Many states have seen challenges to their constitution under equal protection clauses and Massachusetts has seen judges side with the plaintiffs and allow homosexual citizens to be “married” in the eyes of the state. Since the state cannot mandate that churches recognize this civil union as a “holy union”, the church can and does ignore these civil unions. Under Massachusetts’ law, all marriages are civil unions, but not all civil unions are marriages. This is an extremely important concept. The Bush Administration, in supporting the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, wishes to equate civil unions and marriages in all states; in effect, using the Constitution to deny rights to a segment of the population. The only time in U.S. history this has occurred was during the 1920’s when a constitutional amendment (18th) was passed outlawing alcohol sales. It was overturned (21st amendment) very shortly thereafter. Denying rights or to utilize the Constitution to further the goal of discrimination, does not work. The framework of our country should not be used as a tool to drive a wedge between the majority and a minority segment being discriminated against, it should be used to join and bring us together to share and learn from our diversity.

We cherish our right to privacy in this country for ourselves, but when another person lives their life according to a doctrine that we disagree with, we (support), not allowing others the same prerogative. How about a constitutional amendment stating that females should not be allowed to travel outside the home without a male escort? Alternatively, that men who do not own land should not be allowed to vote? Perhaps the people of the Negro race shouldn’t be allowed to drink from the same drinking fountain as people from the Caucasian race? These are completely silly ideas today, but in our past, these practices were the societal norm, and when they changed, the United States became better. Members of the homosexual community ask not to have preferential treatment, but simply to be considered equal human beings, to the so-called human beings of the heterosexual community under the law.

In a recent study conducted by research firm, Witeck/Combs Communications1 estimates that the GLBT community will contribute $641 billion in spending in 2006. This a tax-paying, economy building, growing segment of our community deserve every ounce of equality and respect that any other member of our community receives. As your senator, I will work to ensure that EVERY citizen of my district and of my state be respected and treated every bit as equal as every other citizen.

Yours in Democracy and Solidarity,

Al

To learn more about this issue, please visit: