It's Civil Rights, Stupid

The Declaration of Independence, written in the eighteenth century, reads, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." While rumor has it that a certain faction of our revolutionary ancestry may have meant only white male land owners when they said "all men", as a nation we have moved more and more toward a meaning that encompasses all races, economic classes, and genders.

Amendments XIV, XV, and XIX to our Constitution chart this movement through the nineteenth century as they guarantee equal protection under the law to all persons within the jurisdiction of any state and the right to vote regardless of race, color, "previous condition of servitude", or gender. In the twentieth century, Martin Luther King, Jr., had a dream, and as a nation we embraced that dream, and great strides have been made toward making that dream a reality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is material evidence of our embrace of civil rights in general and equity between genders in particular. Among other things, it forbids employers "to differentiate upon the basis of sex in determining the amount of the wages or compensation paid."

Today, as a nation, we believe in equal pay for equal work, and fight against discrimination on the basis of prejudices of all kinds. We believe that no one should be penalized unjustly for physical characteristics such as their gender. If a person contributes to our society, they should be entitled to all the rewards merited by their contribution. We are a people who believe in fairness and the rule of law. We have already determined that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of gender in the workplace and have passed laws against this. Certainly it would be illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender in determining the validity of a business contract in which gender otherwise would play no part. How then could it be permissible for the government to discriminate on the basis of gender in recognizing a marriage contract? The question of recognizing same-sex marriage is, therefore, not a matter of gay rights, but of civil rights.

The government has no right to discriminate against marriage contracts on the basis of gender because a person of either gender is entitled to equal protection under the law. Therefore, if a man should marry a man, should they later dissolve the contract, either man should be subject to the same divorce laws governing division of property as a spousal couple consisting of a man and a woman. If a woman marries a woman, these women should be allowed to file joint income tax returns. And yes, if an employer extends benefits to the families of heterosexual employees, they must also extend these benefits to the families of homosexual employees.

Will this hurt the majority of voting taxpayers? Will it be unpopular? Is the Pope Catholic? None of this is the question. Do people of the same gender have the right to marry under the law? Since all people have the right to equal protection under the law regardless of gender, the answer is yes.

But more importantly, you as a voter must ask yourself the question, "Do I really want the government to tell me whom I can or cannot marry?" Because that is what this really is about. The founding fathers would all agree that the government has no business making such determinations.