NOW's History on Lesbian Rights

NOW's mission is to promote equality for women—all women. The human and civil rights of all women are included in this effort. For more than 30 years, NOW has been a leader in the struggle for lesbian rights. In 1971 NOW issued its first policy statement recognizing lesbian rights as a feminist issue. The statement acknowledged that a woman's right to independence and self-determination includes the right to define and express her own sexuality and to choose her own lifestyle. This policy cited some of the more blatant forms of discrimination against lesbians—employment, education, child custody and marriage—emphasizing that lesbian couples are denied all the economic and legal benefits granted to married women, including tax deductions, insurance benefits, inheritance rights and more.

Throughout the next three decades, NOW's work on lesbian rights remained strong and decisive, covering such issues as discrimination in the military, anti-sodomy laws, electing lesbian and gay candidates to political office, hate crimes legislation, and expanding same-sex partners' rights. In 1995, NOW made official its support for same-sex marriage, stating that the choice of marriage is a fundamental constitutional right, protected under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and should not be denied because of a person's sexual orientation.

NOW continues to advocate for lesbian rights, including the right to share fully and equally in the rights and responsibilities of marriage. More information on NOW's stand on lesbian rights is available online.

Same-Sex Marriage Emerges as a Dominant Issue

For years, the Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender and feminist communities have recognized that same-sex couples cannot participate fully in our society if they are denied the rights and responsibilities offered to heterosexual couples through marriage. This has led to cases in various states where same-sex couples have filed suit in order to secure their right to marry, and NOW has participated in amicus curiae (or "friend of the court") briefs in those cases.

The right wing immediately seized upon this issue to rally its ultra-conservative supporters. Like the issues of reproductive rights and affirmative action, same-sex marriage can be used to stir up feelings of fear, intolerance and hate. It is also used as a wedge issue, in order to split apart groups that might otherwise agree on issues and pit them against each other.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 and signed by former President Bill Clinton, defined marriage as "the legal union between one man and one woman," and asserted that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. In addition, 38 states have passed their own Defense of Marriage acts.

In 2000, then-Governor Howard Dean signed a law granting civil unions to same-sex couples in Vermont, making it the most comparable option to marriage in the country. Both California and Hawaii have passed domestic partnership laws, which offer same-sex couples some of the benefits given to married people, but fall far short of providing equal treatment. None of these options offer the hundreds of federal benefits available to married couples.

On Nov. 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court made history by ruling that both same-sex and opposite-sex couples are entitled to equal marriage rights under the Massachusetts State Constitution. On Feb. 4, 2004, the same court clarified its ruling, stating that only access to civil marriage (not civil unions) would provide equal protection to same-sex couples under the state constitution.

Terrified that the fight will come next to the U.S. Supreme Court, and that a slim majority of justices might find laws denying equal marriage rights unconstitutional, the radical right is attempting to amend the U.S. Constitution. The Federal Marriage Amendment, introduced in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and supported by President George W. Bush, is an attempt to write discrimination and bigotry into our Constitution, and to overrule any state action on behalf of equal marriage rights.

Why Not Civil Unions or Partnerships?

While the practice of granting civil unions or partnerships to same-sex couples at the state level has been an important advance in the fight for equality, these options do not carry the full legal benefits or the cultural significance of marriage. The substitution of civil unions, in fact, assigns same-sex couples to second-class status—separate and unequal.

Same-sex couples across the country are denied more than 1,000 federal protections and rights. Most states deny committed lesbian and gay couples hundreds of additional benefits. These federal and state rights range from the ability to file joint tax returns to the crucial responsibility of making decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency.

The inability to marry has both emotional and financial consequences. Same-sex couples are not allowed to share Social Security, Medicare, Family and Medical Leave, health care, disability, military and other benefits. They cannot inherit 401(k)s and other property from their life partner without a will. According to Lambda Legal, same-sex couples can lose more than $10,000 per year upon retirement due to a lack of Social Security benefits that would be bestowed upon opposite-sex married couples in identical situations.

This discrimination also affects the children of same-sex couples. Lesbian and gay parents are unable to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. In most states, there is no law guaranteeing a non-custodial, biological or adoptive parent's visitation rights or requiring child support from such a parent.

With an argument this strong on behalf of equal marriage rights, the right wing has had to resort to absurd claims. The charge, repeated over and over again, that allowing lesbian and gay couples to wed will somehow tarnish the institution of marriage makes little sense. When many people hear the phrase "the institution of marriage" they think of unions sanctified by the church. However, the struggle for same-sex marriage is about legal rights—it does not demand that churches perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.

This right-wing propaganda also ignores the fact that many same-sex couples, a large number of them with children, already exist, and will continue to exist regardless of a constitutional amendment. Won't giving these families the rights and benefits they deserve make them stronger? And if more families are flourishing, isn't that good for marriage in general and our society as a whole?

The struggle for equal marriage rights is a feminist issue, because women will not be equal until they can pursue their dreams free from discrimination.

More information about NOW's work on lesbian rights is available online.

Additional talking points on same-sex marriage: www.hrcactioncenter.org/actioncenter/talking.html