 |
|
|
|
|
Speak Out
Millennium naysayers should learn to count
Let me ask you, how old were you at the moment you were born? A minute after your birth took place, you were one minute old, correct? Two weeks later, you were two weeks old, and so on, until exactly one year later, you had completed your first year and you were one year old!
The point is, since our Western calendar is based on the time elapsed since the birth of Christ (and not since his first birthday party) then the moment after midnight, December 31, 1999, will indeed be the first moment of the 21st century.
Jerauld Schultz
Cupertino
Gay couples also deserve right to marriage benefits
Recently, I started working for a company progressive enough to offer medical benefits to the same-sex partners of its employees. Just like married workers, lesbian and gay employees of my company can opt to cover their "spousal equivalent" (how romantic!) under their health insurance.
But it's not really the same. For contained in the brochure describing the coverage lay this clause: "The IRS does not recognize spousal equivalents as eligible dependents." As a result, the payroll deductions will be paid with after-tax dollars, making the coverage cost more than married people pay. Even worse, the IRS treats my company's contribution to this insurance as taxable income to the employee, something it does not do with married people.
Reading this clause was like getting punched in the stomach. Not because of the dollars and cents involved, but because my government does not believe that I am entitled to equal rights.
Next March, a ballot proposition will be voted on in California, stating that, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The intent of this proposal--called the Knight Initiative after its author--is to prevent same-sex couples from marrying in some other state, then moving to California and demanding that their marriage be recognized as legally binding.
As of today, of course, no state allows gay couples to marry. But that day will some day come. Other countries, the Netherlands in particular, also are sure to grant marriage rights to same-sex couples. What will happen when that day arrives? Can California, or any other state, simply turn its back and pretend these marriages don't exist? Many legal scholars say they can't. The United States Constitution, they say, requires each state to grant full faith and credit to the legal acts of every other state, including marriages. The Knight Initiative, like the Defense of Marriage Act passed by the federal government in 1996, is plainly unconstitutional, these scholars contend.
But I would rather focus on what the Knight Amendment means in human terms. Recently, a brochure arrived on my doorstep urging support for the amendment. The key argument in the text is this: "Vote 'Yes' to preserve the institution of marriage that has served as a cornerstone of society for thousands of years."
The brochure contains no fewer than 26 photographs of heterosexual couples. Curiously, even though the pictures show couples of many different races, none of them appear to show a mixed-race couple. Perhaps the sponsors preferred not to remind the readers that as late as the 1960s, many states banned interracial marriage. California was one of them.
The brochure says we should not "re-define marriage" by allowing same-sex marriage. Yet when mixed-race marriage was finally legalized, did that not re-define marriage? And did that damage the institution of marriage? Of course not.
Never have I heard a logical argument explaining why marriage can be weakened by allowing people to marry. No, I'm afraid logic doesn't enter into this at all. The Knight Initiative is all about fear and prejudice, and nothing else.
Civil marriage is a contract between two parties. It was created by government in the belief that it fosters stable relationships, which benefits society. Marriage offers a whole series of pension rights, property rights, and inheritance rights which are not given to anyone else. What argument can be made for denying these rights to a same-sex couple that wishes to make a lifetime commitment?
What about children, it is often asked? Well, just look around and you will get your answer. Many gay couples and lesbian couples are already raising children. Denying them the right to marry causes hardship for them, and also for their children. Most companies do not offer medical benefits to same-sex partners and their children. Who is really pro-family here?
At the same time, many married heterosexual couples have no children. Should we revoke the marriage licenses of childless marriages? Should we forbid heterosexuals who are past child-bearing age from marrying?
Let me make this very personal. I have been in a committed relationship for the past 8 1/2 years. But because my partner is also a man, that relationship does not exist in the eyes of the law. Can any supporter of the Knight Amendment explain why that is not profoundly unjust?
I know that the idea of same-sex marriage is threatening to many people, as new ideas often are. But it is simply wrong to deny equal protection of the law to a significant percentage of the population. I am a citizen, and I pay taxes like everyone else. All I am asking for is the same right as everyone else--the right to marry the person I love.
Robert Ristelhueber
Aragon Way
|
|
|
|
Campbell, California
