APRIL 17, 2000, MONTPELIER, Vt. - Yesterday, the Governor approved a bill that would give same-sex couples more than 300 rights and benefits that had previously been available only to heterosexual married partners. The bill, which was passed by the state house on March 16, is being blamed for wanton destruction and mayhem all across the countryside as a host of plagues of Biblical proportion battered the Green Mountain State.
All over the sleepy, picturesque streets of Bennington and Woodstock, married men and women abandoned their children and fornicated with strangers. "Our marriage vows are meaningless now!" said Mary Smith, who was standing in line at a Brattleboro pawn shop, one of many Vermonters attempting to hock their wedding rings. "I'm going to spend all my money at an Indian casino, or maybe I'll build a small hydroponic farm in my basement for my marijuana plants," she added.
"This new law completely negated my love for my wife of 15 years and my three school-aged children. I'm having the time of my life!" said Harry Von Sloneker, a 39-year-old man who was cavorting in a Montpelier fountain with two naked high school football players.
Marshall Evanston, a professor of sociology at the University of Vermont, observed that, "the state government has just destroyed the institution of marriage, and I fear that we may never recover from this depravity."
The beginning of this column was brought to you by the radical religious right. Apparently, they believe that the "institution" of marriage is under direct assault by the forces of the "radical gay agenda." When gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, it will most certainly discredit the sanctity of existing covenants between husbands and wives. And because heterosexual marriage is the glue that holds families together, banning gay and lesbian unions will ensure that the foundation of our society will be preserved into the future. And without families, there will be no building blocks for the city on the hill.
I think that I have accurately restated the arguments against gay marriage. Maybe I do not have it correct. It sounds so ridiculous that I cannot really imagine anyone being convinced by it. But still, I imagine that the majority of Americans fall in this category, considering that most people are opposed to allowing gay and lesbian marriage. We are, of course, citizens of a country that, since 1996, has legal protections for marriage by defining a marriage based on what genders spouses should be. Even President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, two politicians who are repeatedly accused of being ultra-liberals by the right, have made countless statements in opposition to permitting homosexual marriage. (Incidentally, this confirms my suspicion that the two of them must read a poll over bowls of Cheerios every morning.)
To counter the government's definition, I think that I will present my own views. In two senses, marriage is a contract between two people. They are legally bound together in a civil union that grants them special status for a myriad of official purposes, such as taxes, the census and estate law. These are the important civil and financial rights that are denied many gays and lesbians and denies them many protections that would be their right if they would only decide to love the "right" type of people. In this light, the Defense of Marriage Act is like a national Jim Crow law, denying civil rights to citizens based solely on a personal characteristic.
In a second sense, married couples are bound together in an avowed relationship of mutual love, respect and support. Why this element of marriage should be restricted only to heterosexuals is beyond me. It seems like everyone is capable of holding one person dear in their hearts-no matter what gender they are-and clearly that fact can be sworn to by both individuals. If a couple, same-sex or opposite-sex, wishes to proclaim their love in a court or a church, they should be allowed-because both types of union can be considered to be "marriage" in both senses of the word. To do otherwise would be contrary to human nature and contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.
Many members of the University community who agree with me are still frustrated with Duke's continuing prohibition of same-sex unions in the Chapel, rules that bar loving gay and lesbian couples from holding their ceremonies in the sanctuary of the most prominent building on campus. This policy is inconsistent with the University's policies regarding equal financial support for partners regardless of their sexuality, not to mention the University's stated policy of discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. In my view, it would not be harmful to the grand tradition of holding marriage ceremonies in the ornate and magnificent building because a same-sex union is effectively the same as a heterosexual one. Furthermore, because the current practices are so inconsistent with the spirit of our legal traditions and also, basic common sense, it may actually be more harmful to the institution of marriage to permit these policies to continue.
David Margolis is a Trinity senior.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.