March 9, 2009 marked an important decision for the Obama administration, as the new president lifted the federal funding ban on embryonic stem cell research.
This decision is likely the first of many direct attacks against eight years of misguided Republican policy dominance on a plethora of “social issues.” If Obama’s actions are a sign of things to come, it seems clear that this country is now rapidly moving towards one of its last great civil rights battles: gay marriage.
It appears to me that there are two distinct ways to make the case for gay marriage — a long and short way. The long way runs through a lengthy list of Supreme Court cases which have rejected government efforts to enforce gender roles and sexual “morality,” as well as cases which have established a right to privacy and a large degree of self-determinism in the most personal of affairs. These cases include Griswold v. Connecticut, the cornerstone of the right to privacy and an implicit rebuttal of governmentally determined sexual standards, and Lawrence v. Texas, which explicitly outlawed statutes that made homosexual conduct illegal.
Piecing together these cases, it is clear to me that the case for denial of marriage and its accompanying rights is a weak one. This, though, is the “long” way which places the burden of proof on the people who stand against governmental and conservative efforts to deny essential freedoms to a large part of the citizenry, which is unacceptable.
The short way to make the case for gay marriage is to examine the basic purpose of law in a free country with a secular government — a government that is not in the business of enforcing mere moral opinions. The case can be explained very simply and in general terms: the government cannot bar any behavior that does not interfere with a legitimate and secular government interest. While the government has such an interest in the prevention of, say, murder or fraud, what exactly is the secular and non-moralistic claim against gay marriage? What statistical data can the state provide demonstrating a substantial ill which would be resultant from gay marriage legalization? And even if the state can provide evidence of some ill (emphasis on “if”), would it be substantial enough to deny an important freedom to many of our fellow citizens? Do not hold your breath for any such data to arise.
In this forum, I am aware that I can only provide an overview of this highly contentious issue, but it is my hope that I have raised new questions for some who oppose gay marriage. I would also like to impart a final thought. This issue is important for people for all sexual orientations. If we permit our government to exclude some from full protection of our laws based on reasons of “morality” in this issue, then we give it permission to do so on others. Now is the time to stand up for freedom.
