In October of 2001, Robert Daniel was admitted to the University of Maryland's Shock Trauma Center for complications arising from AIDS. Daniel's partner for more than five years, Bill Flanigan, was told that only family was allowed visitation, and that domestic partners did not qualify. Flanigan was also denied the opportunity to inform the hospital of his partner's treatment wishes. After four hours, Daniel's sister and mother arrived from out of state. Only then did the hospital provide information of Daniel's status that had repeatedly been denied to his partner, and only then did the hospital allow the family, including Flanigan, to see Daniel. By that time, Daniel was no longer conscious, his eyes had been taped shut, and a breathing tube was being used to prolong his life, against his wishes, but unbeknownst to the hospital staff, as they denied Flanigan the right to tell the surgeons. Because of the lack of legalized same-sex marriage, Robert Daniel died without being able to say goodbye to his much loved partner, and Bill Flanigan must live with the grief of not only losing his partner, but of being deprived the closure that comes with a final goodbye.
Introduction:
1. (Short reading about Bill Flanigan and Robert Daniel)
2. How many of you guys have ever felt that you were treated unfairly because of your age, sex, creed, race, or other distinguishing characteristic of yourself? I'm sure at some point or another, we've all felt the sting of some form of discrimination.
3. I know I have. I also know that I have witnessed some pretty harsh discrimination against homosexuals in my lifetime, from seeing close friends beaten up, to watching the Matthew Shepherd story play out on the news, to reading about the discrimination against Bill Flanigan and Robert Daniel in a pamphlet from Lambda legal defense and education fund that I was given at this year's gay pride parade.
4. My purpose today is not to change your mind about homosexuality being right or wrong, moral or immoral, Christian or unchristian, but to convince you that homosexuals should have the same legal right to marry their partners that heterosexuals have. I plan to do this by first addressing why we need "gay marriage" anyway, then discussing the hot topic of gays as parents, and lastly, by showing you that if you think homosexuality is wrong, you are not "contributing to the problem" by supporting the right for homosexuals to marry.
Body: First of all, homosexuals deserve the right to legally marry. This is their constitutional right, proven when earlier this year an effort was made by a small group of right wing members of congress to amend the constitution to prohibit marriage by gay and lesbian couples. They failed, by the way.
A. But still I hear the question, "why do we need gay marriage anyway?"
1. We don't, we need marriage.
2. The term "gay marriage implies that homosexuals want extra privileges, when in actuality, all they want is equality.
B. But then people ask, "isn't marriage traditionally a union between man and woman with procreation in mind?"
1. Yes, however marriage has also been traditionally restricted to people of the same religion and race. Only 30 years ago interracial couples were prohibited from marrying. Some traditions are only discrimination in disguise.
2. Let's face it, marriage is not simply about the union of man and woman or about having babies; barren women, sterile men, and couples who have no intention of procreating marry every day. The basis of marriage is love. If love is present, why deny a couple the right to have their relationship legally recognized?
C. People still wonder, though, why domestic partnerships and civil unions aren't good enough.
1. While it is a victory in itself that these institutions exist, they simply are not good enough. The importance of legalizing same sex marriage can be shown accurately in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11th 2001. No one can deny the trauma surviving family members of the terrorist attacks went through and are still going through; however, the homosexual community directly affected by the tragedy faced additional trauma: proving that they were "real" family members of the victims. Without a marriage certificate, they were not guaranteed eligibility for support from funds, relief with short term bills, or help with funeral expenses. They also did not find support under the social security safety net. Those protections are substantial, and almost exclusively defined by marriage.
2. In watching the news in the weeks following the tragedy, I will not forget the story of a gay couple who had been together for more than 40 years, longer than over half of heterosexual marriages last. One partner was killed in the World Trade Center on September 11th. I followed the story of the remaining partner until it was no longer deemed newsworthy, and was replaced by other matters. The last I heard of the situation was that this man was not eligible for support of any kind. What I found more appalling is that these two men had a child together, and that child was eligible for everything the government had to offer. In the government's eyes, the child was the only real family the deceased had. His life partner was not recognized as anything more than a roommate.
Transition: While the stories of tragic discrimination would convince some, there is always that lingering question, "what about the children?"
II. I typically would not even address this question, as I do feel that it is somewhat off topic, but since it is such a barrier to the rights of homosexuals, I will tackle it briefly.
A. Using the cause of "what about the children" is a subconscious way to justify discrimination.
1. People who do not see themselves as discriminating are opposed to same sex marriage because they are concerned about the effects of the relationship on the children. This is the same idea behind being concerned for the children of interracial or interfaith relationships.
2. The question raised is why would there be concern for the children if there was not some concern about the unconventionality of the relationship of the parents?
B. The three oppositions I hear the most are, "but gay couples can't have kids," "doesn't a child need a parent of each gender to develop properly?" and "what if the parents make the child gay?"
1. Ok, to answer that first question, there are ways for gay parents to raise a family. Adoption, and surrogate mothers are frequently used methods of gays having children.
2. Next, no, a child does not need a parent of each gender to develop properly. There are plenty of children raised by only one parent, as the other has died or simply left the situation, that turn out fine. However, in a same sex relationship, there are typically two roles: the masculine and the feminine. The child in a same sex relationship is usually exposed to both a male and female gender role.
3. Lastly, parents cannot force their own sexuality on their children. If they could, there would be no homosexuals because all straight couples would raise straight children. While how a particular sexual orientation develops in individuals is not well understood yet by scientists, psychologists agree that the parent's relationship does not play a role in determining the sexual orientation of a child.
Transition: Now that I've hopefully shown to you that homosexuals need marriage too, and that there really isn't any reason to hinder this, I want to conclude by pointing out that you aren't abandoning your Christian morals by supporting this cause.
III. First, I would like to address the Christian aspect of this moral dilemma, then show you why Christians like yourselves are supporting this cause.
A. Yes, the bible condemns homosexuality. The bible also condemns divorce, and for that matter, eating sausage, while behaviors such as prostitution, polygamy, and slavery were permitted. And, yes, I am also in agreement that our country was founded on biblical principals.
1. These days our country boasts mor than a 50 percent divorce rate. Prostitution is illegal in most states, polygamy and slavery in all, eating sausage in none. Biblical standards change with the times. Using the bible as a way to justify discrimination simply does not work.
2. There are numerous churches, the number steadily growing, that accept actively gay members and love them as the Christians they are. One must recall that while our country was founded on biblical principals, it was founded for freedom. Our country is too strong to fall apart because gay couples want to utilize that freedom to marry.
B. On why you should support the cause of gay marriage, there are a few reasons.
1. First of all, to accept something is not necessarily to condone it, acceptance is only saying "I give up" to a fight that cannot be won. Acceptance on this level does not even require respect for what one is accepting, only respect for the human beings involved.
2. Today, according to another Lambda Legal pamphlet, polls show that two thirds of the American public believe that homosexuals will win the right to marry. That does not mean they support it, but that they realize that the battle being fought against the homosexual community is perfunctory, and is only postponing the inevitable: homosexuals gaining the rights that they should already be entitled to, not because they are gay, but because they are human beings living in this amazing country. These individuals realize that homosexuals exist, and will not cease to exist because they are not allowed to marry; they will only fight harder.
Conclusion:
1. After showing that there is a need for same sex marriage, pointing out that same sex parents are in no way harmful to the children, and hopefully convincing you that you are not immoral or unchristian in supporting same sex marriage, I urge you to support the cause. Or at the very least, please don't oppose it.
2. I would find it very difficult to believe that any of you, had you been alive, would have supported the crusades, the holocaust, or the segregation of the sixties. This discrimination is no different. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said that freedom must be demanded by the oppressed. Looking back on what Dr. King fought for, it is difficult for those of us who were not around to fathom the unfairness of segregation as a reality. It is a beautiful idea to me that maybe forty years from now our children will say the same thing; will ask us, "How could the world have been so cruel back then?" because their world will be perfect and free from hate. It is a silly idea, I know. No one can ever force discrimination to end, it will continue on in some hearts and minds no matter what is said or done. Hate is as integral a part of this world as love is. There will be an equality for our children to fight for, as well. I am a dreamer, though, and a hate free world is a nice thought. The first step to proving me wrong, that hate will never be abolished, is to get this discrimination out of the way and show me the next one, so that I may begin writing that speech.
© jessica huby, 2002
