Martha Barnette is the daughter of a seminary professor and the sister of a Southern Baptist minister. She has been involved in a committed relationship for more than seven years. "Like other couples," Barnette says, "we work hard, fret over bills, worry about things like public education, pay taxes, and savor quiet evenings at home and romantic dinners out. We're totally monogamous, and we're in this relationship for the duration."
Unlike most couples, however, Barnette and her partner are lesbians. They have joined a growing list of homosexual couples who regard marriage, in Barnette's words, as "a set of special rights for heterosexuals." These couples want the freedom to visit their partners in hospital emergency wards instead of being denied access because they are not considered family. They want the legal license to make decisions in the event a partner is declared legally incompetent. They want to be able to collect pension and other benefits upon the death of a spouse without having to jump through legal hoops. In short, they are seeking recognition as married partners and all the legal and social privileges that accompany such a designation.
The New York City-based Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund (LLDEF) is coordinating an aggressive public-relations effort aimed at changing the country's perception—and its laws—regarding same-sex marriage. Says lldef's marriage project coordinator Evan Wolfson, "We want public discussion in every state and every community. Americans deserve to hear the real-life stories of real-life couples, stories that will challenge the stereotype."
Opponents of legal recognition for same-sex marriage maintain that it will contribute to a decline in public morality, to the dissolution of the traditional family, and to social instability. "Marriage, defined in terms of one man and one woman, has served this planet well for about 6,000 years," says Bill Devlin of the Philadelphia Family Policy Council (PFPC). "Heterosexuality, even with faults such as a high divorce rate, still needs to be upheld as the norm for a civilized society."
Devlin and other opponents of same-sex unions fear a domino effect if homosexual marriage gains legal acceptance. "Business owners could be charged with discrimination for not extending marital benefits to same-sex couples," Devlin says. "Children would be taught in public schools that homosexuality is as normal and healthy as heterosexuality."
Steve McFarland, director of the Christian Legal Society's (CLS) Center for Law and Justice in Annandale, Virginia, says legalization of same-sex marriage could curtail religious expression of individuals or organizations that oppose it on moral grounds.
"I can't think of a more critical and potentially divisive issue that we face today," McFarland says. "On it rests the future of the family as we know it in America."
ALL EYES ON HAWAII: Wolfson maintains that same-sex marriage is neither abnormal nor unhealthy. Defining marriage as a "relationship of financial and emotional dependence between two people in love who make a legal and public commitment to each other," he says there is "no good reason" for limiting the institution to a man and a woman.
If a pending court case in Hawaii turns out as Wolfson and Barnette would like, the door to same-sex marriage would open not only in the island state but across the country. "If marriage passes in Hawaii, Debra and I will call our travel agent the minute we hear about it so we can get married legally," Barnette says. They would not be alone. Observers on both sides of this policy debate predict that tens of thousands of homosexual couples would find their way to Hawaii, though it is far from settled whether their marriages would be recognized back on the mainland.
The Hawaii case involves three homosexual couples who sued the state in 1992 after being denied marriage licenses. The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that denying the licenses violates Hawaii's constitution unless the state can demonstrate a "compelling interest." The case has been returned to a lower court to determine whether a compelling interest exists. A trial is scheduled for July.
In 1994, the state legislature defined marriage exclusively in terms of union between a man and a woman. However, last year the Hawaii Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law, a panel formed by the legislature, proposed legalizing homosexual marriage. Claiming the commission unfairly favors homosexual marriage, conservatives in the state took legal action to withhold the commission's report from legislators.
Among conservatives, several organizations have emerged to oppose homosexual marriage. According to Mike Gabbard, president of the Honolulu-based Stop Promoting Homosexuality America, public opinion is solidly opposed to legalizing same-sex unions. Gabbard says the movement consists not only of conservative Protestants, but also Catholics, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists. They share the conviction that, whether ordained by God or nature, marriage is intended to take place only between men and women.
Article continues below
Gabbard and others maintain that legalizing same-sex unions would wreak havoc on the lives of children who are reared by same-sex couples by denying them access to both male and female role models they need to mature emotionally, socially, and spiritually.
"More than ever, people understand that tampering with the mother-father household as a model for the family is not good," says Peter LaBarbera, editor of Lambda Report, which monitors homosexual activism. "Some places are even trying to retrench liberalized divorce laws."
CHANGING TIMES: Conservative resistance notwithstanding, the country is clearly moving in the direction of more liberalized political and social policies and attitudes relating to homosexuality. Thirty-five years ago, all 50 states had laws banning sodomy. Though these laws were not enforced—and though their scope was not limited to homosexual sex—they nevertheless testified to a public morality that stood against homosexual behavior. The laws have been dropped in 27 states.
Several hundred companies now extend benefits to homosexual partners of employees. Among them are Walt Disney, Time Warner, Levi Strauss, Apple Computer, Lotus Development, Microsoft, Coors, and the Hertz Corporation. More than 20 cities, including Atlanta, Boston, and Seattle, and two states—Vermont and New York—offer domestic partnership benefits for government employees. At least 21 states now allow homosexual partners to adopt children, according to LLDEF.
On January 29, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors unanimously passed an ordinance authorizing civil ceremonies with marriage-like vows for homosexual couples who register with the city as domestic partners. The ceremony carries no legal weight.
The Log Cabin Club, which represents homosexual Republicans, has announced its support for legalizing same-sex marriage. In the minds of many, this gives the cause a measure of respectability, in part by carrying it across the boundaries of party politics. Most major Christian denominations are home to pro-homosexual rights caucuses that push for the ordination of homosexuals and the acceptance of same-sex unions. As of now, no traditional denomination officially supports same-sex marriages, though individual churches within denominations—such as the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church—have performed ceremonies of commitment for homosexual couples. The topic likely will be discussed at this year's Presbyterian Church U.S.A. general assembly and United Methodist Church general conference.
Article continues below
The cultural shift, however, has had little if any effect on the convictions of those evangelicals who maintain that the Bible clearly regards homosexual behavior as sinful. This is the position taken by Westmont College New Testament professor Thomas E. Schmidt in his 1995 book "Straight & Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate" (InterVarsity).
Schmidt contends that, from the Creation story through the New Testament, heterosexual monogamy is the only form of marriage consistently affirmed by Scripture. He also challenges pro-homosexual revisionist interpretations of such verses as Romans 1:26-7, passages traditionally understood as admonitions against homosexual behavior.
In addition, Schmidt focuses on the pathological nature of homosexual practice. He cites various studies, including one in 1978 by researchers A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, which reported that 74 percent of male homosexuals had more than 100 sexual partners during their lives, with 28 percent having had more than 1,000 partners. Schmidt concludes that for "the vast majority of homosexual men, and for a significant number of homosexual women," sexual behavior "is obsessive, psychopathological, and destructive to the body." He writes, "If there were no specific biblical principles to guide sexual behavior, these considerations alone would constitute a compelling argument against homosexual practice."
Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) justice ministry volunteer Mel White, however, disputes both Schmidt's findings and his conclusions.
"Tom Schmidt is a propagandist, as is Christianity Today," White says. "CT has never been interested in exploring the issue neutrally."
"The studies show that gay people and straight people are equally promiscuous," says White, who has lived with a homosexual partner for 11 years. He says this contention has been confirmed by his experiences within the 28-year-old MCC, which has 300 congregations and a church membership of 250,000, about 95 percent of whom, according to White, are active homosexuals.
lldef's Wolfson, citing David McWhirter's "The Male Couple" (Prentice Hall, 1985), says there is not a big difference in heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity. Wolfson says homosexuals would be more committed to each other if society accepted same-sex rites.
White, a former ghostwriter for evangelical leaders such as Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell, says that same-sex marriage is ultimately a pastoral issue and concern: "It is not about statistics or studies. It is about people who are suffering and a way to help end that suffering." Homosexual orientation is "a gift from God to be embraced, celebrated, lived with integrity. If you don't see that premise, gay marriage looks ridiculous, if not insane," says White, a former evangelical filmmaker and former pastor of Pasadena (Calif.) Covenant Church
Article continues below
Opponents of homosexual marriage, such as Bob Davies, however, maintain that dealing pastorally with the issue entails a thorough assessment of the biblical evidence and an open self-examination of factors that may have contributed to homosexual orientation. Davies is president of the San Rafael, California-based Exodus International, an umbrella organization that supports people striving to overcome homosexual orientation. He favors efforts aimed at understanding and growth, as opposed merely to assigning blame.
"I believe that many [advocates of homosexual marriage] have had a genuine experience with Christ and are very sincere," Davies says. "But at the same time, I believe they have been sincerely deceived.
"The struggle against homosexual feelings is the battle of a lifetime," Davies says. "A lot of people have given up on the struggle too soon and so have adopted a theology that supports their homosexuality." Davies maintains that children reared by same-sex couples will have a particularly difficult road toward emotional and psychological stability.
FOCUS ON PUBLIC POLICY: While the biblical debate on homosexuality is not likely to be settled anytime soon, the public-policy debate appears ready to accelerate. Based on a long-standing constitutional provision known as the Full Faith and Credit clause, it is generally presumed that states should honor the laws and policies of other states. This explains the expected mass migration to Hawaii if it legalizes same-sex unions.
One exception, however, is if one state's law conflicts with another state's strongly established public policy. (In the past, the public-policy exception has been debated by states with differing views on common law marriage.) If Hawaii does legalize same-sex marriage, it is likely that attorneys across the United States will be scrambling to set forth their positions on what constitutes a strongly established public policy.
In such an environment, antisodomy statutes would take on considerable symbolic importance. Those who support legal recognition for homosexual couples likely will argue that repealing antisodomy laws constitutes movement toward public policies in support of same-sex marriage. Legislators in Utah have attempted to settle the matter before it becomes an issue by passing legislation denying legal recognition of homosexual marriage. Lawmakers in at least six other states—South Dakota, Alaska, California, Utah, Iowa, and Washington—are attempting to do the same. The PFPC's Devlin is working with Pennsylvania legislators toward this end. "It's a shame that we have to specify that marriage is limited to a man and a woman," he says, "but at this point we do."
Article continues below
The situation in Hawaii also could trigger action at the federal level if same-sex partners begin filing their tax returns as married couples. (Currently the IRS defines marriage based on the law in the state where the marriage takes place.) Because of the potential federal-level implications, some are urging presidential candidates to give the issue of homosexual marriage increased priority.
MOBILIZING FOR DEBATE: Lambda Report's LaBarbera predicts that the coming debate on homosexual marriage will "make the gays-in-the-military debate seem like a little fist fight." LaBarbera says that conservatives, unlike proponents of homosexual marriage, have been hesitant to address the issue out of concern for being regarded as "hatemongers." LaBarbera says, "The side that's able to talk freely and proudly and righteously about their cause, I think, is the long-term winner. I'm worried if we don't talk about it, we're going to lose."
According to Stop Promoting Homosexuality America's Gabbard, conservatives' efforts to mobilize around the issue are accelerating as like-minded organizations convene for various meetings and strategy planning sessions. The ad hoc Alliance for Traditional Marriage is circulating a resolution declaring that marriage is "an essential element of the foundation of a healthy society." It calls on government to "continue to reserve the special sanction of civil marriage for one man and one woman as husband and wife."
The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund has a different policy goal in mind. According to the resolution it is circulating, marriage is "a basic human right," and "the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage." The strategy also calls for trying to influence newspapers to include coverage of ceremonies of homosexual commitment in their wedding sections. The Los Angeles Times and Virginian-Pilot are among the papers accepting such announcements.
Article continues below
GUIDING PRINCIPLES: While the public-policy debate rages, some, including Dwight Ozard, editor of Evangelicals for Social Action's "Prism" magazine, are concerned about the purity of the church's witness regarding marriage. "We have given in to our culture's and to most other cultures' notion that marriage is essentially an economic partnership or a legal or social contract," Ozard says. "But marriage is not fundamentally that. It is two people being made one flesh in a spiritual act that God makes a reality through the church."
Ozard believes that state recognition and church recognition of marriage should be distinct. "This would allow the church to make a moral statement against same-sex marriages without denying what are perceived as civil rights."
According to the lldef's Wolfson, arguments rooted in the Bible or religion should not be recognized in the public debate. "For government to interfere with the freedom of an individual—whether religious or personal—there must be valid secular reasons." But the CLS's McFarland maintains the Supreme Court has long rejected Wolfson's approach.
"The framers of this country not only assumed, but were depending upon, the citizens to bring their religious viewpoints to matters of public policy," McFarland says. "To suggest that Americans leave their religion inside the four walls of the church and out of the public square and out of the legislature sets on its head the foundation of this country."
The PFPC's Devlin says the interfaith coalition that in 1993 successfully opposed a domestic partnership initiative in Philadelphia steered clear of biblical arguments. "We contended, based on statistics and research, that a child who has a mother and father at home is more likely to do well," Devlin says. "We also pointed out that, if the city approved domestic partnerships, it would not be able to afford benefits for all those who might come forward, such as relatives, to register as domestic partners."
James Skillen, director of the Center for Public Justice in Washington, D.C., maintains that to allow same-sex partners to marry constitutes a "misidentification" of the relationship. He explains that a homosexual relationship is properly identified as a friendship, not a marriage. As with Devlin, Skillen is concerned that if legal recognition is granted, "two brothers or a woman and her grandmother could seek recognition as married partners." He asks, "Why should one form of friendship be given recognition that others don't have?"
Article continues below
Skillen believes that many homosexual activists are ultimately searching for the moral approval of the majority culture. "In American culture, more so than in some, legal recognition has often meant the same as moral approval."
The discussion of homosexual marriage raises challenges to both sides regarding principles that should guide the public-policy debate. What principle, for example, would prevent three, four, or eight people from being legally married, as some advocates of homosexual rights have proposed?
On the other hand, if same-sex marriages negatively influence public morality, how far should the society go toward criminalizing homosexual relationships? Gabbard maintains that landlords should have the legal right to refuse to rent to homosexual or unmarried heterosexual partners.
Where the society will draw the line between tolerance and civic morality remains to be seen. Meanwhile, those on both sides agree that this debate has the potential to shake the very foundations of U.S. public policy.