Dear Sen. Brownback: Please Don’t Insult Me
Sep/090
A couple weeks ago my other half, Ben, sent a letter to our representatives in Congress via HRC’s Repeal DOMA Now website. Today, we got a response from Senator Sam Brownback, one of Kansas’ two Republican Senators. (The other, Pat Roberts, is no friend of mine either. Take his defending insurance companies stance, for example.) I did not expect our letter asking for Sen. Brownback’s support in repealing DOMA (should the Senate take up such legislation before his retirement next year) to change his mind. I also did not expect his reply to be as detailed as it was, nor did I expect him to directly insult our relationship. (Which I should have, this being Kansas. Our history on LGBT rights is less than stellar.)
A central priority for me is to work to rebuild our families in America. In the United States today, marriage is in a real crisis. Over the last 50 years in the United States, the marriage rate has gone down considerably while the divorce rate has gone up. In 1960, the out of wedlock birth rate was 5%; now, it is 26%. Put simply, we have fewer kids being raised by a mom and dad bonded in marriage. While you can valiantly raise a good child in another setting, which we ought to celebrate when it happens, the best place to raise a child is in a family with a mom and dad bonded together for life.
I’ll accept the Senator’s argument that marriage is in a crisis. I don’t think many people are okay with such a high divorce rate. Some marriages will dissolve over time for whatever reasons, but how many of these marriages were a rash decision? The marriage and divorce rate argument is not applicable to same-sex marriage as it has nothing to do with granting marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples.
The out of wedlock birth rate (to some extent) reflects the changing societal norms. No longer is it taboo to have a child before marriage (or without being married at all), nor do I think it should be. A capable parent is not dependent on being married. There are single moms and dads that are raising happy, healthy children. (For the record, I was raised by a single mother who was also going through graduate school towards her Doctorate. I don’t consider my childhood hindered in any way; I wouldn’t have it any other way. To this day I’m immensely proud of my mother for all that she did for me and my brother.) The Senator would like to celebrate raising children in “another setting”, yet he’s against gay marriage and gay adoption and gay parents. How many children are without a stable, loving home in this country? How many children go from one foster home to another? You would deny these children the potential parents out here who would love them and raise them and provide them a family? And all because of your narrow-minded view that gays and lesbians aren’t suitable parents? What’s worse: two dads (or moms) or no parents at all?
Another fundamental principle is the equal dignity of all human persons. Equal dignity and respect does not mean, however, that all relationships are the same. Marriage, as it has always been defined, involves the complementarity of spouses and the inherent openness to life. I think before we redefine a fundamental institution we ought to consider the current context. Given the current crisis of marriage, the question for many is whether redefining marriage to include unions of those of the same sex helps or hinders the fundamental institution. For this reason, I oppose both same-sex marriage and civil unions.
Equal dignity of all human persons, but with an asterisk at the end. Who is the Senator (or another human being, for that matter) to decide what is worthy of equal rights? African-Americans were denied civil rights for decades because they were “inferior”. The same holds true of women’s rights, be they reproductive, voting, or equal-work-equal-pay. Marriage “involves the complementarity of spouses and the inherent openness to life”. What in that sentence would prohibit two men or two women from that classification? If the Senator is using that to allude to marriage being historically defined as “one man, one woman”, then he is wrong again. Back in December of 2008, when Rick Warren was slated to be part of President Obama’s inauguration, there was uproar in the LGBT community over Rev. Warren’s anti-gay-marriage rhetoric. Warren brought up the same historical definition of marriage argument, and I offered my argument as to why that argument was incorrect:
It’s a large assumption to make that for [five-thousand years] every culture andevery religion has defined marriage in the same way. The very institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history, and the methods of the ceremony and the very concept itself has changed over the many thousands of years of recorded history. For most of European history, marriage was little more than a business arrangement with marriages between families a common way of strengthening power and improving social class. … [W]hile it is true religious traditions throughout the world hold the word marriage to heterosexual unions, there are a growing number of exceptions, including Unitarian Universalist, Metropolitan Community Church, Quaker, United Church of Canada, and Reform Judaism congregations. — Rick Warren and Why This is a Big Deal, Greetings from Flyover Country, December 2008
Regardless of the historical definitions (as loose as they are), using history as a roadblock of progress is counter-intuitive. Humanity and society would not have come to this point had our predecessors looked at history and said why bother changing the status quo? The Iowa Supreme Court said it best in their ruling that led to legal same-sex marriage in that state:
Initially, the court considered the County’s argument the same-sex marriage ban promotes the “integrity of traditional marriage” by “maintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm ([as] one between a man and a woman).” The court noted that, when tradition is offered as a justification for preserving a statutory scheme challenged on equal protection grounds, the court must determine whether the reasons underlying the tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements. These reasons, the court found, must be something other than the preservation of tradition by itself. “When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.”
Senator Brownback says that the question for many is “whether redefining marriage to include unions of those of the same sex helps or hinders” marriage as an institution, and that “for this reason”, he opposes both same sex marriage and civil unions. He is in opposition because of a question that he gives no answer to? Obviously, from his position, he feels “redefining marriage” would hinder marriage as an institution despite opening it up to more couples. His opposition to civil unions, however, has nothing to do with marriage as an “institution” and everything to do with his views that some relationships are less important than others. All of his reasons are for why gay marriage should not be legal, not why gay and lesbian relationships themselves are a bad thing. I would imagine his personal and religious beliefs would come in to play at this point. However, what myself and other gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships are seeking is not approval from their Senators or Congressmen. They’re not looking for acceptance. They’re seeking the equal rights and protections of their government the same as their married (heterosexual) friends, neighbors, family members, and fellow citizens.
The central question for me is how we can get more kids raised by a mom and a dad bonded together for life. Redefining marriage does not strike me as a step in the right direction. Eliminating the marriage penalty, creating a more family-friendly tax code, and supporting programs that enhance marriage and make marriages stronger seem a better start. Rest assured, I will keep your comments in mind should legislation in this area come before the Senate for a vote.
The “marriage penalty” is that some couples, each making the same amount of income, pay higher taxes than if they were filing as single (not “married filing separately”). (I can’t imagine they don’t pay drastically higher taxes. The US tax rate is already ridiculously low compared to other modern industrialized nations.) A more “family-friendly tax code”? What exactly does this mean? There are already child tax credits. And spousal benefits are deducted pre-tax while domestic partner benefits are post-tax. I’d also make at least $200 more each month if I were able to select married on my W-2. Republicans like paying less in taxes, but only if you’re straight. Gay couples are at a tax disadvantage and the GOP doesn’t seem to give a damn.
I appreciate that the Senator shared his views. I also appreciate all the good that he does to for Kansas and that he believes he is doing what he believes in, even if I disagree with him on many issues. What I do not appreciate is Senator Brownback thanking me for contacting him, while in the same breath insulting my relationship as being less than his marriage. He ends the letter with “you are the reason that I am here”. I, personally, am not. I wasn’t able to vote in the 2004 election (nor was I a resident of Kansas), and if I was I would not have voted for him. And I won’t be voting for him in his upcoming gubernatorial bid.
I am not seeking his acceptance of my relationship. I don’t want his acceptance. He is entitled to his beliefs. But I don’t want him telling me that I’m somehow less of a person because of who I am. That I don’t deserve the same federal (and state) benefits afforded to me if, tomorrow, I go down to the courthouse with some woman I met on the street and get a marriage license signed. (No religion involved, either. This is strictly a civil matter.) People say that there is too much going on to take on the issue of same-sex marriage, that it isn’t as important as health care reform or getting the economy back on track. But gay marriage affects health care of the countless couples where their employer(s) don’t extend domestic partner benefits but will happily extend those same benefits to spouses. Gay marriage effects the economy (for the better), as Keith Olbermann pointed out back in May. I’m fine taking a weekend trip to Iowa to get married so long as the federal government says my marriage is valid and affords me the rights and privileges thereof. (And, under Full Faith and Credit, Kansas should recognize the marriage as valid. I don’t care if they issue them, but they should treat it he same as any other legally valid out-of-state marriage.)
The repeal of the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) would be simple. In fact, HR 3567 as introduced by Rep. Nadler of New York is very short. I commend the Representative and the numerous co-sponsors for introducing this important bill, and I urge everyone to contact their representatives in Congress and tell them to support marriage equality in spite of Senator Brownback’s refusal to be a voice for all of his constituents.
Flickr
