Gay marriage
ban denied
U.S. House of Representatives 12 votes shy of passing measure
by Svetlana Guineva
The Metropolitan
(Photo courtesy of Karen Bensen)
Couple Cindy Deim, left, and Karen Bensen, right, director of the Gay,
Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Student Service at Auraria Campus with
their child, Anten Skrabee, live an image of a healthy long-term committed
relationship. This family is but one example of gay couples everywhere
struggling for the equal rights and privileges of their straight and married
couple counterparts.
A proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage died on the Senate
floor July 14, 2004, but those who support it and those who oppose it
do not intend to give up the fight for what they believe in.
The proposed amendment needed 60 votes to pass,but only 48 senators voted
in favor of the proposal and 50 voted against it.
House Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., led a crusade against activist
judges in Massachusetts who helped the state legalize same-sex marriages,
by sponsoring the amendment that would redefine marriage in the United
States Constitution as only a “union of a man and a woman.”
The proposal was backed by President Bush who in a radio address July
10 said, “When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on
the people, the only alternative left to people is an amendment to the
Constitution – the only law a court cannot overturn.”
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who voted against the measure, said he is grateful
that the founders of the constitution wisely made certain it is difficult
to amend and cannot be done without overwhelming public approval.
Some question the real nature of the debated measure—whether it
protects tradition and values, or ushers division and discrimination against
a group of people.
“It is a politically divisive issue (same-sex marriages). This
constitutional amendment is to reject homosexuality…to deny legitimacy
of love,” said Dr. Robert Hazan, chair of Metro’s Political
Science department.
He also said there is a heavy dose of religious beliefs that influence
the debate and eventually will define the final outcome.
The religious sector is also divided with some standing behind the constitutional
amendment and some advocating for gay rights and equality.
Michael Sheridan, bishop of Colorado Springs Roman Catholic diocese,
said in a letter May 1 that there is a misinterpretation about the relationship
between faith and politics.
“In no way does the American doctrine of separation of church and
state even suggest that the well-formed consciences of religious people
should not be brought to bear on their political choices,” he said.
Further, the bishop singled out politicians who were in favor of same-sex
marriages as ones with ill-informed Christian consciences who deviate
from the Catholic teachings and said that denying same-sex marriage is
not equivalent to denying a human right.
Religious groups opposing the amendment present the argument that the
bible clearly states all people are created equal and God shows no partiality.
“We oppose the amendment because it is discriminatory,” said
Rev. Phil Campbell, founder of Colorado Clergy for Equality in Marriage,
an organization which unites Christian and Jewish clergy to oppose the
marriage amendment.
Campbell, who is also a minister at Park Hill United Church of Christ
in Denver, signed a resolution presented May 3 at the Rocky Mountain Conference
of the United Church of Christ.
The resolution stated, “From the standpoint of our faith, we affirm
that marriage is a fitting estate into which two people who desire to
live together in love, mutuality and respect may enter through the rite
of marriage that is blessed by God.”
Conservative religious groups took part in an initiative called “Marriage
Protection Sunday” July 11, in which pastors throughout the nation
attempted to reach thousands of church-goers by discussing the same-sex
marriage issue in support of the proposed amendment.
Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family is one of the groups that
supported the amendment and is determined to continue the fight to ban
gay marriages.
“Same-sex marriage humanly redefines marriage, so it’s no
longer a sacramental relationship between two people,” said Glenn
Stanton, senior analyst for marriage at Focus on the Family.
He also said the union between a man and a woman has remained universal
in all human civilizations, and it functions as protection for children,
protection for women from male predators. It socializes men and regulates
sexuality and therefore an amendment to the constitution is necessary.
In the heat of the debate, those who the final outcome will ultimately
affect most remain quiet and observe from afar, while continuing to unite
themselves as couples whether it is accepted legally or not.
“It’s hard for me as a gay person to read and hear what some
people say – ugly, uneducated, fear-driven statements. I educate
people and try to show them that there is nothing to be afraid of,”
said Karen Bensen, director of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender
Student Service at Auraria Campus.
She said the office is like a surrogate family for people who come out
and tend to be confused, so they try to help them explore who they are
and encourage them to be themselves.
Bensen also said there are two student couples who are getting married
on campus Oct. 12.
“Deep in my heart I know that it’ll happen (legalizing of
gay marriages). I have faith in (the) progress of humanity,” she
said.
A central point in support of the ban is the argument that children in
such unions would grow up in an unhealthy environment with two mothers
or two fathers.
The opposing side argues that heterosexual marriages often end in divorce
and are not a guarantee for successful parenting. A report published by
the Centers for Disease Control showed that 43 percent of first-time marriages
end in divorce or separation within 15 years.
“Is that really what God intended human relations to be like? The
Catholic purpose of marriage is procreation, this is what makes marriage
sacramental,” said Rev. Chrysostom Frank of the Church of St. Elizabeth
at Auraria.
He said family is the building block of society and the primacy of marriage
as a social unit could be undermined if gay marriages were accepted.
He added that the main threat the legalization of same-sex marriages
brings to traditional marriage is that the permanent relationship of a
man and a woman will be viewed as one option among many.
The arguing sides split on one more issue—is this a civil rights
movement or not?
Stanton said the debate should absolutely not be considered a civil rights
issue and that it is not something to be compared with the race issue.
Holli Berman, 34, a Boulder lesbian and biological mother of 3-year-old
twins and stepmother to her partner’s 13-year-old daughter, finds
it hard to agree.
“It is a civil rights movement to me. I have three children and
so many rights and privileges are denied to me, just because I’m
not married to a man.” Berman said.
“I’m not going to change my way of life, because some people
don’t like it. I demand rights because I’m not a second-class
citizen,” she said.
Although the proposed amendment did not make it to vote this time around,
those who support it vow to continue the fight because they feel it is
the right thing to do.
Colorado Republican Senator Wayne Allard, who sponsored the Senate version
of the proposed amendment, has said that the battle has just begun.
Hazan said the issue is being used as a political tool months before
the presidential elections and has attracted more attention than it should.
Bush also said in the July 10 radio address that our nation has no choice
but to defend traditional marriage.
“Marriage is not an invention of individuals or even societies.
Rather it is an element of God’s creation. No one can simply redefine
marriage to suit a political or social agenda,” Sheridan said.
|
