Director's Editorial:
"Now, By the Power Vested in Me. . ."
Does bashing gays really win votes? Playing both sides of the coin adeptly, President Clinton signed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act into law on September 21, while instructing his press secretary to call the bill "gay-bashing, pure and simple." Equal rights for lesbians and gay men is sacrificed at the alter of election-year rhetoric. In the words of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, D--Mass, "I regard this bill as a mean-spirited form of Republican legislative gay-bashing cynically calculated to try to inflame the public eight weeks before the Nov. 5 election."
All right, I'll admit it, gay marriage not an easy issue. That's why the Republican Party and the religious/political extremist right chose it. They know marriage rings of God and church and family. They know they can play on fears that churches will be forced into performing gay marriages against their will.
That's just not true, by the way. The doctrine of the separation of church and state guarantees that churches may marry, or refuse to marry anyone, for any reason, in accordance with their own doctrine. (Ironically, many of the groups supporting DOMA are working to undermine the doctrine of separation of church and state in their campaigns for school prayer and teaching religious creationism.)
Even many gay-rights activists think gay marriage is not an easy issue, and definitely not one they would have chosen. Just as with the gays in the military debate, they feel reluctantly drawn into demanding inclusion in an institution they have never really wanted to join. They'd rather be working on stopping employment discrimination, ending street violence against gays, being able to keep custody of their own children, or any number of more pressing issues.
But the issue has been laid before us all and the choice is clear. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared marriage "one of the basic civil rights" and said the choice of a marriage partner belongs to the individual, not the state. Civil marriage is really quite unrelated to religious ceremony. It confers certain legal responsibilities and numerous benefits to the spouse. Preventing marriage because of the sex of the spouse is clearly denying civil rights.
It is wrong to single out any group of people based on a personal characteristic and pass laws which discriminate against members of that group. It doesn't matter how uncomfortable they make us feel. It's wrong.
Montana's two senators voted with the majority, when the Senate passed DOMA 85-14. A portion of Max Baucus' justification is printed below, along with my response.