March 21, 2004
While the debate over legalizing (or banning) gay marriage rages on, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom and the mayor of New Paltz, Jason West, have boldly gone against the grain and started marrying gay couples, causing other elected officials to follow suit.
I compare it to the acts of civil disobedience that started the civil rights movement.
Some people argue that this is a line elected officials should not cross. Fair enough; these men and women were elected to uphold the laws. But homosexuals cannot yet marry without this fight. Heavier firepower is needed, and the actions of government officials speak louder than the words of any protester.
And these officials are taking some risks — West and two New Paltz ministers who married gay couples are facing jail time.
These rogue marriages are the first step toward gay marriage winning acceptance in this country, much in the way that Rosa Parks sitting in the "whites only" section of the bus was the first step in what became a huge, powerful movement.
These marriages performed in San Francisco and New Paltz are the first salvos in the developing gay-marriage war. President Bush in his State of the Union address made it very clear he would support an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage. But that document is supposed to protect the liberties and freedom of Americans. It will be a sad day when it's used to deny a select few certain rights.
Bush claims he wants to defend "the sanctity of marriage." If Bush really wanted to do that, he would have stopped Britney Spears from marrying Jason Alexander in Las Vegas, or Carmen Electra from marrying Dennis Rodman. Those two marriages make more of a mockery of the institution than any homosexual union could.
Homosexuals who marry aren't harming anything but a few peoples' religious sensibilities. They deserve all the benefits that come with marriage, including the word, "marriage." At the end of the day, it's just a word.
A gay couple moving in next door isn't going to change my sexuality. It's not going to corrupt the children to see two men or two women in love. It won't change the way I live my life, but it will change the lives of people in love who have been waiting to get married.
It's admirable that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry supports civil unions, in which gay couples would have all the benefits of a marriage, but wouldn't actually be considered "married." But this creates the same slippery slope the "separate, but equal" argument created for black Americans. It's not equal if it's separate. It's not a marriage if it's a civil union. As Bush's only real competition come fall, Kerry needs to take a more hard-line stance.
Bush has the support of a majority of the country in his bid to impose limitations on gay marriage. Even so, he has backed himself into a corner on the constitutional amendment issue, one he may have to fight his way out of come election time.
There was a time when equal rights for black Americans were unthinkable. There will come a time when gay marriage is no longer unthinkable.
The seeds of that change have just been sown in New Paltz and San Francisco.
Ahmad is a copy editor for the Press & Sun-Bulletin. E-mail him at wahmad@pressconnects.com.
© 2004 Press & Sun-Bulletin, Binghamton, N.Y.