Marriage Equality as Speech

Last night I heard about Senator Rob Portman changing his mind on same-sex marriage.  Portman, the Ohio Republican who was one of the contenders to be Mitt Romney's running mate, offered his support for same-sex marriage in a thoughtful editorial in the Columbia Dispatch.

Portman was a cosponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman and which also prevents states from having to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. His change of heart comes after learning two years ago that his son is gay.  I suspect this happens in families fairly frequently; opinions often change as lives change, as reality crashes in where beliefs once stood fast.

One of the things that Portman came to realize was that there is a way to bring together his religious upbringing, his conservatives values, and marriage rights.  He notes in his comments that

British Prime Minister David Cameron has said he supports allowing gay couples to marry because he is a conservative, not in spite of it. I feel the same way. We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people’s lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.

House Speaker John Boehner, also an Ohio Republican, was asked by ABC's Martha Raddatz (in an interview to be aired Sunday) if he could foresee a time or situation when his views on this issue would change, such as if a child or loved one was gay.  Here's his answer.

Rob’s a great friend and a long-time ally. And I appreciate that he’s decided to change his views on this. I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. … It’s what I grew up with. It’s what I believe. It’s what my church teaches me. And I can’t imagine that position would ever change.

Boehner's views may not change (and he is not alone), but many Republicans are shifting towards equality for all couples who wish to marry, to share the benefits granted by our government to those in approved unions, which are not granted to those in civil unions. And isn't that kind of an oxymoron? What's 'civil' about legalized discrimination? 

The shift is not without risk, however. Take the case of Richard Hanna, a moderate Republican from Central New York. Hanna was one of two Congressional Republicans who signed an amicus brief urging the US Supreme Court to strike down the California initiative that banned marriage equality there.   He faced a primary last year, then went on to win his seat - handily - in spite of the fact that he didn't get the Conservative Party endorsement. But now, he's apparently enraged the National Organization for Marriage with his decision to get on board the equality train. Here's what Brian Brown, president of NOM, had to say about Rep. Hanna's chances next time around.

There's absolutely no doubt that we are going be involved in the next election for Richard Hanna's seat. What folks don't understand is that we have Republicans and Democrats who support us, but if a Republican betrays the party platform, betrays his constituents, and does what Richard Hanna does, you can bet we're going to primary him. And if a Democrat wins in the end, so be it. 

Hanna won't be alone in this. Others who cross the line and support marriage equality are apt to face similar primary challenges (or at the very least benign neglect) in their next race.

In the end, what we have here is people exercising their right to speak freely, their right to make public statements in support of equal rights for all, facing significant pressure from other people exercising their right to freely speak a differing opinion.  And while I'm not a fan of the threat-laced political atmosphere in which we find ourselves, whether the discussion is on marriage equality, gun rights, taxes, or entitlements, I appreciate and support each side being able to express their opinion.

Here's Senator Portman again; I think he gets it exactly right:

As we strive as a nation to form a more perfect union, I believe all of our sons and daughters ought to have the same opportunity to experience the joy and stability of marriage.

But what I don't get is, why is it that the same conservatively principled people who brought us corporations are people too are not able to understand that gay people are people too, and deserve the same rights as everyone else.  Not different rights, or better rights, just the same ones. My Sweet Baboo and I can get married if we choose to, at any time.  We have that right simply because we're an opposite sex couple?  I think that's ridiculous, but it got me thinking.

If my Baboo and I were to get married, it would be a public and legal declaration of our  commitment to each other, that we were partners in the truest sense of the word, until death do us part.  If we got married, it would be for love, security, protection -- to have the full rights afforded people who take the plunge, who make the statement "I am married."

And then it hit me: isn't marriage -- the act, the declaration -- constitutionally protected speech?

And shouldn't it therefore be championed by those who favor limited government?  Who favor freedom for people to make their own way in the world, to succeed or fail, with a husband or wife steadfastly by their side? Who believe in our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? And wouldn't marriage eguality then be as worthy of defense as say, the right to bear arms?

Hmm...