By Carole Copeland Thomas, MBA

I am female.
I am a mother.
I am a divorcee.
I am heterosexual
I am a practicing diversity advocate.
I am a staunch lifetime member of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) with family ties to my church dating back to the mid-1800s.
and
I support the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling in support of Gay Marriage.

I fully expect that this declaration now risks my status as a member of the Trustee Board of Bethel AME Church-Boston and realize that it puts me at odds with those who oppose gay marriage, including the Black Ministerial Alliance of Boston and The Ten Point Coalition (a very successful faith-based organization based in Boston). While traveling for the past two weeks I have thought deeply about this controversial issue and heard the passionate comments voiced on both sides. While in Washington, DC last week attending the legislative conference of my public service sorority, Delta Sigma Theta, I briefly met my congressman, Barney Frank, and expressed my concerns to him. Last week after returning to Boston, I was glued to my television, watching the Constitutional Convention of the Massachusetts State Legislature and witnessed three proposed amendments voted down by members of the House and Senate that would ban gay marriages in this state.

I’ve heard the politicians. I’ve listened to the sentiments from members of the gay and straight communities. I’ve evaluated the remarks from the non-profit organizations that oppose and favor gay marriages. I’ve reviewed the lengthy November 2003 ruling on gay marriage by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC).

And I’ve concluded that not granting gay men and women same sex marriage rights is a violation of their civil rights.

It is a form of legalized discrimination.

Here are some of the reasons why I support gay marriage:

1. The SJC carefully analyzed the legal definition of civil marriages before ruling on this landmark case. In its ruling, it made the case that denying same sex marriage was a form of discrimination.

The plaintiffs in this case Hillary Goodridge & others vs. Department of Public Health & another argue that the "the marriage restriction (between a man and a woman) violates the Massachusetts Constitution. The plaintiffs argue that because nothing in that licensing law specifically prohibits marriages between persons of the same sex, we may interpret the statute to permit ‘qualified same sex couples’ to obtain marriage licenses."

As I read this case, the fourteen individual plaintiffs from five Massachusetts counties are not disputing the union between a man and woman so much as they are challenging the assumed ban on members of the same sex getting married. "Section 1 and 2 of G.L.c.207 prohibits marriages between a man and certain female relatives and a woman and certain male relatives, but are silent as to the consanguinity of male-male or female-female marriage applicants."

In the end, the SJC defined a civil marriage as follows:

"We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiff’s constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships."

2. Defining marriage purely as the union of a man and woman for the sake of procreation leaves out millions of persons whose marriages never produce children.

As a 50 year old divorced mother of three, there may be a possibility that I may remarry in the future. Since my childbearing days are over (thank God), getting pregnant and having more children in a second marriage is not an option for me. Would that mean that my marriage would be any less valued than a couple who could bear children? And what about the countless loving couples who, for whatever reason, can’t have children? Are there marriages less valued that those who have a house filled with kids?

Defining marriage solely for the purpose of procreation limits the loving and nurturing relationships that will never produce children. It does not, however, threaten the intent of those who want to bear children. That right is reserved for those who find procreation a natural part of their relationship.

3. Civil marriage is a legalized partnership authorized by each state, and precedes the consecration of a faith-based ceremony.

In the United States, a couple must obtain a marriage license before having a civil or religious ceremony that "blesses" the union of a couple. The state defines what a civil marriage is, and what it is not. Similarly, when a couple divorces in the United States, it must endure that painful process through the courts. Again, it becomes a matter of a civil "dis-union."

Understandably so, religious practices, ceremonies, and rituals share center stage with the union of a happy couple as evident by the millions of marriages that are performed in churches, temples, mosques, and other holy shrines throughout this country. But before these faith-based services can be performed, a couple must secure a marriage license from their respective government office.

4. Civil unions alone are not equal to civil marriages. They are by definition a step below marriage.

One of the most compelling arguments that swayed me to the side of those supporting gay marriages is the fact that benefits are not necessarily guaranteed to gay couples. This is especially true for couples who have adopted children (a legalized practice here in Massachusetts and many other states.) If a gay partner dies or becomes disabled, the respective benefits (health/dental insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, etc.) may not automatically cover the surviving partner and children involved in the relationship. In some states that have banned civil unions, benefits to the surviving gay partner may be prohibited altogether. Is that fair for those hard-working men and men who work, contribute to a benefits plan and social security, yet whose families are unable to collect because their state does not recognize their union... or marriage to a gay partner?

I find that to be a form of discrimination.

5. Biblical interpretation is just that ....Biblical interpretation. The same holds true for other religious teachings.

Before you tar and feather me, hear me out.

Who’s to say what faith-based organization holds THE key to THE leading interpretation of the scriptures? Is it the AME Church? The Baptist Church? The Protestant Church in general? The Catholic Church? What about the Jewish Faith? And who said this title doesn’t belong to the Muslims? Or the Buddhists? Or the Hindus?

What about the Atheists who don’t believe in God? Or the Agnostics? Or those practicing Voodoo? Or the countless forms of religious beliefs observed by the 6.3 billion people on the planet? Who is right? Who is not? Are you angry yet? Have you ever thought about this?

Religious interpretation goes hand in hand with the faith that we have in our respective faith based institution. Dictionary.com defines faith as "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith." Therefore it is our faith, our belief system, our set of values that determines the validity we hold as "truth" in our respective religious scriptures and interpretations. And they differ based on how we see their importance in our lives and our cultures.

In a multicultural society such as the United States, it is the law that unifies our communities, our neighborhoods, and our homes. It demands that we respect our differences (religious practices, etc.) while recognizing the unifying legality of our city, town, county, state, and federal laws.

So when I hear the arguments against gay marriage for religious reasons, I can’t help but think about the plurality of our society and the complexities of religious and non-religious thought.
Is it right for my religious interpretation to supercede yours just because more than 87% of Americans are Christians?

My belief is that the members of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court carefully ruled on this controversial case in full respect of ALL religious teachings that form the driving force of the citizens of this state.

6. Gay marriages will have LITTLE risk on heterosexual marriages.

My 20-year marriage and subsequent divorce had nothing to do with the relationships of gay couples. In fact gay relationships only target a small percentage of people on our society. (An estimated 10% of the total population is GLBT-Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual or Transgender.)

Heterosexuals do a fine job of corrupting society. Just count the number of sexually explicit emails that are sent every day to annoyed people like me and other unsuspecting cyber users. And consider cases of infidelity, child abuse, spousal abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, and cruel behavior between men and women that will never make the front pages of the Boston Globe or the New York Times.

We heterosexuals should concentrate on cleaning up our own act before parading before the television cameras to voice our opposition to gay marriage.

In addition, what about the millions of people who are suffering the ravages of poverty, disease, unemployment, underemployment, military dictatorships, violence, death/murder, educational disparities and general neglect?

I see NO ONE standing up before the state legislature offering amendments in protection against these critically important societal vices.

The Supreme Judicial Court took an explosive issue, dissected it, and reformulated the definition of marriage. In that reformulation, it gave credence to the legal union of same sex marriage. Unless halted by Part 2 of the Massachusetts Legislature’s Constitutional Convention, scheduled for March 11th, gays and lesbians will be allowed to marry starting in May 2004.

For the vast majority of us who are heterosexual, that historic event will do little to change our lives.

It’s a matter of equal justice under the law. Not just for some people. But for all of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

I welcome your comments.