Marriage Works! (But for Whom?)

This feature was created by Ben, a former YouthResource intern

In the entry foyer of the Metro station, there are twelve billboards, six on either side of the passage. Each one features the smiling face of a young bride and her distinguished husband standing behind her, both filled with financially and emotionally supportive splendor. "Marriage Works!" shout the billboards,six times in each ear, offering twenty-four ecstatic brides and grooms to back it up in case you thought otherwise. This campaign, as well as numerous others, is representative of an exchange of ideas about the institution of marriage, offering perspectives that both threaten and reinforce messages about legal bonds of marriage.

Same-sex marriage has become a hot topic of discussion following an intense presidential campaign and an election that was arguably based on issues of a moral nature. Historically, the discussion of same-sex marriage has entered theories of classic philosophers and in the dialogue of early homosexual activist groups like the Mattachine Society . Now as young GLBTQ people are witnessing a historic push for recognized marriage equality, some questions come to mind. Who is benefiting from the same-sex marriage debate? What does this initiative mean for GLBTQ young people? Does it include their hearts and voices? Keeping those in mind, it is important to break down some of the influential systems determining policy and pushing for change. Comprehensive information on the institution of marriage allows GLBT youth to make informed and empowered decisions about their opinion on the topic.

Let's start with the courts. In 1973, a Kentucky state court offered three official definitions of marriage as they were set down in three different dictionaries. All three specifically note the presence of a man and a woman in the essential characteristics of a marriage. This has been the tone of national courts, echoing the defining aspects of the institution in the biology of the applicants. Attempts to overturn this classification of marriage have taken their stances on grounds of sex discrimination , rights to privacy , and civil rights . Almost all have failed, yet the initiative to overturn definitions has gained momentum.

In Hawaii, the sex discrimination argument was upheld. Due to the wording of Hawaii's constitution, denying marriage - a Hawaiian civil right - based on the sex of applicants, was in fact discrimination based on sex and therefore unconstitutional. In Colorado, an Amendment defining homosexuals as a different class ineligible for protective legislation was struck down by the US Supreme Court, calling on the memory of separate-but-equal legislation in the late 1800's as a warning for the potential of these legislative actions. Various other dates are essential in the campaign for equal marriage laws, yet there are more decisions supporting exclusionary definitions in the spirit of upholding traditional understandings of marriage.

Recently, the distinction between legal marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnership has come into media discussion. Major differences lie in the geographical limitations, federal protections, benefits, and availability of these different types of recognized bonds. One important difference is that civil unions and domestic partnerships are only recognized by state governments and offer no federal protection to those involved. These various categories of partnership have come into discussion with a focus by recent administrations on the preservation of the institution of marriage as understood in a heterosexual context.

President Bush has offered insight into his current stance on the issue of same-sex marriage as it effects the people of the nation. He has expressed strong support for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act , which defines marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman" as well as expressing that states need not recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of their state boundaries. George W. Bush appears to support a Federal Marriage Amendment , which would ban the marriages of same-sex couples and alter the Constitution to express this. In October of 2003 his support went out to "Marriage Protection Week" an initiative of organizations like the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and the American Family Association. President George W. Bush has clearly stated his opposition to recent Massachusetts court rulings legalizing same-sex marriage in the state, yet is unclear on his opinions regarding civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.

Working to change the federal approach to marriage are various initiatives sponsored by a variety of organizations including Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Human Rights Campaign, American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Some are working on petitions, others on research and statistics, while others are navigating the courts to mediate change. Most initiatives are aimed at drawing in established couples and families from the GLBTQ community and beyond. So where do youth stand in this debate? How are young people affected by the debate over same-sex marriage?

Candice Gingrich, Youth Outreach Manager for the HRC, states that the "younger generation is the most supportive of marriage equality" and notes "the importance of GLBTQ youth in the quest for equality." Chris Hampton, of the American Civil Liberties Union, felt that this debate is important because "marriage is often used as an excuse to keep young people from having access to adequate HIV/health education" as abstinence only education stresses that youth should wait until marriage before having sex. Dr. Todd Ramlow, a professor of Women's Studies and Human Sciences at the George Washington University, points out "once we start taking away individual and group civil rights and protections, it's a slippery slope." He goes on to ask whether "this is the kind of society that queer youth want to live in, regardless of their stance on the individual institution of marriage?" This message is extremely important but how can young people make their voices heard?

Dr. Ramlow continues to stress the use of "technologies and possibilities of the internet;" by "writing letters to Congressmen, Senators, judges, newspaper editorial pages, local papers, national magazines" and many other media outlets. The possibilities for getting your voice heard are endless. Make a zine, silkscreen a t-shirt, or wheatpaste a flyer. The important part is that young queers participate in this debate to work towards are more tolerant and accepting future utilizing accessible resources and outlets as much as possible.