Washington Week: Student Voices (O)

COLUMN: Gay marriage debate needs revision, refocus
By Lee R. Heerten
Daily Nebraskan (U. Nebraska)
07/10/2006

(U-WIRE) LINCOLN, Neb. — Last week millions mourned and others rejoiced as the presumed death knell of the gay rights movement rang. On July 7, the New York Supreme Court ruled against legalizing same-sex marriage in a state that has become synonymous with liberal thought.

Suddenly, the overwhelming optimism that has accompanied the gay rights movement since Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2003 dissipated. The assumption that nothing could stop the inevitable progression of civil rights was abandoned.

Instead of unrealistic optimism, an unfounded pessimism has fallen over the gay rights movement. It seems the idea of being defeated in a state like New York is simply too much to take for gay rights leaders. At the same time, social conservatives are celebrating this decision as an empowering legal and political triumph.

Both sides have completely blown this decision out of proportion.

New York's court ruling should not be viewed as the end of the gay rights movement. In fact, it is an opportunity. Gay rights activists have been so focused on the marriage issue that other struggles, equally if not more important, have been ignored and pushed out of the political and public consciousness.

The struggle to achieve same-sex marriage has overshadowed efforts to increase funding for HIV/AIDS research and to improve the lives of those affected by HIV/AIDS. The promotion of hate crime legislation and the prevention of school and workplace discrimination, areas that once showed promise, have also taken a backseat to the issue of marriage.

Same-sex marriage is viewed as the end-all answer to creating a supportive environment for gay couples and families. It ignores other important options, including civil unions, domestic partnerships and lesser adopting restrictions for gay couples that could more quickly create a positive environment for gays than same-sex marriage. Making these advances realities would also provide a stronger base from which to push for same-sex marriage.

Gay rights advocates need to take a moment and reflect on their goals and the best way to achieve them. It's possible that same-sex marriage should be a priority, but the early success of the issue and the subsequent controversy surrounding it has made gaining a clear perspective difficult.

Yes, the New York court's decision is a setback, but it's also an opportunity for gay rights advocates to rethink their approach instead of being blindly pushed along by previous success.

Just as the decision is not the end of the gay rights movement, it is also not a major victory for the right wing. The logic and reasoning used by New York Supreme Court is so poor it's pathetic. The decision is a mindless regurgitation of baseless, homophobic propaganda.

The decision may be used as precedent for other, like-minded courts. However, no open-minded or undecided court is going to be swayed by New York's ruling. If anything, the courts will frantically try to distance themselves from such a logically unsound opinion.

Judge Robert Smith, in his majority opinion for the court, proposes "that for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships."

The presumption is that allowing gay couples to marry would void all stability that heterosexual couples find in marriage. Not only is that logic laughable, but to follow it is to assume that the children of heterosexual couples are more deserving and important than the children of homosexual couples.

David Buckel, senior counsel and director of the Marriage Project at the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, summed up the reality of the court's ruling:

"It's a mess of a decision that in the end makes a very weak argument: That you can justify barring same-sex couples from marrying because of the unstable relationships of heterosexual couples."

Judge Smith's wording, using "sexual preference" instead of the accepted "sexual orientation," is also expected to cause a backlash. Any pretense of looking at this case from a strictly legal standpoint is abandoned when he deliberately chooses to use wording that is generally offensive to homosexuals.

Although New York's ruling is certainly a setback in the gay rights movement, it needs to be put into proper perspective. Both sides lost opportunities in New York: The gay rights movement lost an opportunity to expand same-sex marriage to another state and the right wing lost an opportunity to give their opinion credibility.

Six other states have similar cases that will be ruled on in the near future. The New York court will not have the final say in this issue. Its influence will become less and less important with every subsequent ruling.

Contrary to the belief at the time, Massachusetts' ruling three years ago did not ensure the quick success of the gay rights movement. Likewise, New York's ruling certainly does not signal the defeat of the movement.

[ Back to Student Voices ]