Jeremy Patrick (jhaeman@hotmail.com)

June 3, 2000

"I want—I want somehow to get away with you into a world where words like that—categories like that—won’t exist. Where we shall be simply two human beings who love each other, who are the whole of life to each other, and nothing else on earth will matter."

--Edith Wharton, The Age of Innocence

There are times when the conduct of some members of my species makes me ashamed to be a human being. Such an occurrence has taken place recently.

Two weeks ago, a conservative religious group in Lincoln launched a petition drive to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot. The amendment reads: "Only marriage between a man and woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship, shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska."

We all know that marriage is a bundle of rights and responsibilities designed for two people in a committed relationship. It affects everything from tax breaks to child custody. Because the proposed amendment includes domestic partnerships, committed same-sex couples in Nebraska may never receive such basic rights like hospital visitation if a partner was injured or bereavement leave if a partner died.

The real motives for such a malevolent act can only be hatred, ignorance, or fear. The purported motive behind these bans, however, is to "protect the family and the sanctity of marriage. Indeed, the group responsible for Nebraska’ petition drive calls itself the "Defense of the Family Committee."

The notion that gay unions could somehow threaten the institution of marriage is a laughable one, and I’ve never met anyone who could articulate exactly where the danger lies. Are Bob and Judy going to get a divorce because their neighbors Laura and Irene just got married? I think not. Scientific evidence clearly indicates that children of gay couples are just as healthy and "normal" as the children of straight couples.

Supporters of the ban are quick to throw out other fallacious arguments. "Since the beginning of time, marriage has always been between a man and a woman," said Guyla Mills, chairwoman of the Committee (LJS, May 28). A cursory examination of the historical record "since the beginning of time" will show that marriage has meant many different things to many different cultures; in some cultures, marriage was a purely economic arrangement arranged by the parties’ parents; in other cultures, polygamy was common and normal. To say marriage has only meant on thing since its inception is to ignore reality.

Some supporters of the ban favor the old "slippery slope" argument. If we approve gay marriage, Pastor Riskowski of Lincoln’s Christ’s Place Church worries, "then what’s wrong with brothers and sisters, or man and animal marrying? Where do you stop the definition? (LJS, May 28) The definition, I should think, should include consenting committed adults when there are no valid public policy reasons against inclusion. Brothers and sisters marrying creates genetic problems in offspring; animals are not consenting adults. To compare loving same-sex couples to bestiality, incest, and pedophilia (as other religious figures often do) is nothing more than the most vile of scare tactics.

Once the rhetoric of "family values" is discarded, however, supporters of a ban are quick to pull out their fallback weapon—the Bible. By casting gays and lesbians as "abominations," it becomes every Christian’s moral duty to prevent these "unholy unions." Besides ignoring the growing segments of their own faith that supports equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals, this approach ignores a fundamental tenet of our political system: the separation of church and state. When a religious group flexes its muscles to deny, without secular justification, the equal rights of a smaller group, we have nothing more than a tyranny of the majority. Perhaps, as Pascal said, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."

We must be realistic. This petition drive will succeed, if not this year than the next. If a ban can pass in a state such as California, we have no chance in heavily conservative Nebraska. The next six months will be a difficult time for GLBT individuals and their allies. Ballot initiatives such as this often bring out the worse in people as they feel justified in their hatred and ignorance.

I remain, however, optimistic about the future. Thirty-three years ago this month, the final bans on interracial marriage were finally lifted. Supporters of the bans had argued that they were necessary to "protect the family, "firmly rooted in the Bible," and required to prevent a "slippery-slope." I am confident that thirty-three years from now, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation will be as reviled as discrimination on the basis of race is today.

(c) Lincoln Journal-Star 2000