| |
|
Articles About Marriage
Dear Lt. Governor Racine ,
- If you only have a minute, this first sentence is to express my strong support for the Vermont Supreme Court decision, and to say that I strongly believe the only way equality can be achieved is to extend the Vermont marriage statute to include same sex marriage.
- In case you have more than a minute, I would like to explain why I feel the way I do. I am a 52 year old attorney active in professional associations, history major in college, father of a 27 year old son, Presbyterian elder who has been President of his congregation, conservative southern Republican gay man. I grew up in the 50's when such things as sexual orientation were not discussed in polite society, thus while I knew I was different, I mistakenly assumed it was because I was not good enough to be like everybody else rather than that I was a homosexual. I did not know that the concept of homosexuality existed, much less that there were men who were homosexual. Because I accepted my church's position on premarital sex and abstained, and because I met an absolutely wonderful woman, I married after my senior year at UNC-Chapel Hill and then entered law school. Only after I married did I figure out that intimate relations with a woman were uncomfortable and unnatural for me. However I had also made a committment before God to remain married in my wedding ceremony. I took that committment seriously, and thus continued to live a lie for the next 23 years. Through therapy that my wife knew I was receiving, but not why, I was able to keep some semblance of the marriage alive. We shared mutual values, and we had built a life together, however the sexual relationship was full of tension. Instead of being the ultimate expression of love for each other, it became something for me to avoid and that was shattering my wife's self esteem. Only after she began to question me about my sexual orientation did I summon the courage to tell her the truth.
- I say all of that to try to put personal information in this letter so you will have a brief idea of why I feel the way I do. Not only do I consider domestic partnership as less that equal to marriage because separate can never be equal from a legal standpoint, I also consider domestic partnership to be a real threat to the institution of marriage, an institution I strongly believe in and strongly support. If the Vermont legislature tries to craft a domestic partnership law that is equal to marriage, will it just be for same sex unions, or will it be for everybody? If just for same sex unions, as a body of law grows interpreting the statute, will those cases just apply to domestic partnerships, or will the concepts developed under domestic partnership court cases apply also to heterosexual couples who have married? What about the heterosexual couples who have chosen not to marry? Will other separate legialation need to be crafted to cover that situation, and then of course there will be same sex couples who choose not to formalize their relationship, and will they have the same rights as the heterosexual couples who choose not to marry? In other words, distinctions and classes of litigants will inevitably arise under separate legislation.
- I also approach this issue from a religious and historical perspective, and as one who thinks the institution of marriage has been critical to the development of our current culture. I realize it has been thousands of years since the Jewish faith formalized the idea of one man united with one woman for life, but that concept has been one of the building blocks to achieve what most of us consider an advanced and moral civilization. Phrased another way, it has allowed partners in life to achieve things over the centuries that would not otherwise have happened the way they did. It has also been invaluable in allowing one generation to pass its culture and mores on to the next generation. Recognizing same sex unions only allows that partnership of togetherness to be available for homesexual citizens as a civil right, and if particular religions choose over time to recognize same sex couples, then those couples can have a religious ceremony with their marriage license as well.
- However, if domestic partnership is available, and has the same economic benefits and responsibilities, but not the entanglements of a marriage, then people may begin to choose domestic partnership over marriage as a preferential personal chioce for someone they choose to live with for a period of time. I view that as destructive to the institution of marriage. Setting up different classes of legally recognized relationships will inevitably result in differences, which will cause one to be viewed as better than the other. If it is the institution of marriage that is so viewed, then good for society, but bad for those who have a legally recognized relationship which is not as good. If domestic partnership becomes the legally recognized relationship that grows into the one with the most advantages and benefits, then people will opt for that instead of marriage over time, which will be good for those who make that election, but I'm afraid not good for society. And eventually those couples who chose marriage will be filing a lawsuit to get the same benefits as those who are domestically partnered.
- The only solution to preserve for the long term the idea of partners working together to build a life together, whether it be male and female, or same sex, is to have one institution for both. We already have marriage, and centuries of tradition and concepts to build upon in applying that to same sex couples. I would strongly urge your office, and Governor Dean's office (I tried to email him but could find no address) to encourage the Vermont legislature to add same sex couples to the Vermont Marriage Act, and not to try to craft separate and eventually unequal domestic partnership legislation. Making the issue more complicated than it is only creates confusion and political strife where, in reality, none need exist. This is simply a recognition of a life partner, male or female, and if issues arise over time, fine tuning the Vermont Marriage Act can always be accomplished as needed, and such fine tuning will be built on those centuries of tradition and values rather than on something brand new and untested.
- Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
- Ed Farthing, Hickory, North Carolina
| | |
|
