Equal Marriage NOW: Talking Points

Some of these talking points are similar in meaning, but phrased differently. Select the arguments that are most likely to persuade your audience:

See also: Questions to Ask Those Who Oppose Equal Protection for Lesbian and Gay Couples

In these Talking Points:

• Equal Marriage and Feminism
• Equal Marriage and Civil Rights
• Marriage Benefits
• Federal Marriage Amendment
• Cultural Perspective on Equal Marriage
• Why Not Civil Unions Instead of Marriage?
• Responses to Conservative Arguments
• Religious Freedom and Marriage Equality

Equal Marriage and Feminism

• The struggle for equal marriage rights is a feminist issue. Women will not achieve full equality until every woman can pursue her dreams free from discrimination. NOW made its support for same-sex marriage official in 1995, declaring that the choice of marriage is a fundamental constitutional right under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment that should not be denied because of a person's sexual orientation.
• Feminism is rooted in freedom, independence and love. Any lesbian woman should be able to marry her partner and be entitled to the same rights as her heterosexual sisters.
• The right wing is telling women they have to marry a man in order to get married—holding relationships of women with men on a pedestal. Not allowing women to marry other women promotes a patriarchal society where a woman's economic security is dependent on her relationships with men.
• Feminism is about having choices and opportunities. Women are free to choose a partner and should have the opportunity to marry or not marry their partner regardless of gender.

Equal Marriage and Civil Rights

• The right to marry has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right under the United States Constitution.
• Government has no business intruding in our personal lives. A Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages would write discrimination into the Constitution.
• All couples, lesbian and gay and heterosexual, deserve the legal protections afforded by marriage. Currently, same-sex couples in committed relationships are likely to pay higher taxes than married couples. They receive no Social Security survivor benefits upon the death of a partner despite paying payroll taxes. They are denied healthcare, disability, military and other benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. Without a will, they often pay estate taxes when a partner dies, including significant tax penalties when they inherit a 401K pension plan from a partner. They are denied family leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
• Children of same-sex couples are penalized by marriage discrimination. More than 1 million children are currently being raised by same-sex couples in the United States, according to the 2000 census. Many lesbian and gay parents, however, are unable to assume full legal parenting rights and responsibilities, and 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. Without the ability to establish a legal relationship to both parents, these children are left without protections such as Social Security survivor benefits.
• Writing discrimination into the constitution, federal or state, is unjust. It singles out a group of people and categorizes them as second-class citizens undeserving of legal and economic protections. Marriage discrimination subjects same-sex couples to the tyranny of the majority.
• The debate needs to be about real people and not abstract politics. It's about millions of real families and the basic protections that all families need. And it's about whether our nation will safeguard and protect all families or turn a blind eye as anti-gay fundamentalists seek to place them in harm's way for political gain.
• The concept of governmental neutrality concerning religion is written clearly in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, stating that neither the federal government nor state governments can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a "wall of separation between" the Church and the State. Supported by a number of decisions made my judges and justices throughout the years, such as Everson v. Board of Education and Lemon v. Kurtzman, the establishment of religion clause is absolute—no law shall be passed involving the establishment of any religion or religious beliefs. Simply put, no person's individual religious beliefs opposed to same-sex marriage shall influence another individual's fundamental civil rights.

Marriage Benefits

• Civil marriage will give same-sex couples the same economic security, protections and peace of mind that is enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.
• There are 400 state benefits and 1,000 federal benefits granted to married couples. Here are just a few:
  • Access to employer-provided health and retirement benefits for partner and non-biological/adoptive children.
  • Access to partner's coverage under Medicare and Social Security.
  • Ability to visit or make medical decisions for an ill or incapacitated partner.
  • Right to sue for wrongful death of partner.
  • Ability to sponsor one's partner for immigration.
  • Economic and emotional stability for children of married parents, including increased societal/peer approval.
  • Access to streamlined adoption process.
  • Access to health benefits and inheritance from both parents.
  • Right to maintain a relationship with the non-biological/adoptive parent in the event of the death of one parent (in states without same-sex second-parent adoptions).
  • Joint insurance policies for home, auto and health.
  • Joint parenting and joint adoption.
  • Bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child.

Federal Marriage Amendment

• The Federal Marriage Amendment would ban any legal protections for same-sex couples. The amendment goes much farther than simply defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It is a harsh, discriminatory measure that would prevent same-sex couples who have made commitments to each other from having any basic rights and protections under the law.
• Right-wing propagandists are attempting to write discrimination and bigotry into the U.S. Constitution to prevent equal marriage rights. The divisive Federal Marriage Amendment introduced in the House and Senate and supported by George W. Bush is an attempt to amend the Constitution to deny rights to lesbians and gays by saying that ";marriage shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."; Throughout history, the U.S. Constitution has been used to ensure, protect and expand the individual liberties of all people in the United States. The FMA would restrict rights, not expand them.
• The anti-gay amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions are intended to define marriage as the ";union between a man and a woman"; and designed to deny same-sex couples ANY legal protections.
• The Federal Marriage Amendment would write discrimination in the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution was written to protect and ensure equal treatment for ALL. This amendment would destroy that equality by rewriting the Constitution to treat one group of people different from others. Since the Bill of Rights was passed, there have been only 17 amendments to the Constitution, and these amendments have expanded people's rights—such as giving African Americans and women the right to vote. The Federal Marriage Amendment would be the first time in history that the Constitution was amended to restrict the rights of a group of people.
• Both Republicans and Democrats from across the political spectrum oppose a constitutional amendment. Leading conservatives have criticized a constitutional amendment as little more than a political tool to gain an advantage on election day. The amendment has been used to call attention away from the issues where the Republican Party has been criticized including the War in Iraq, health care, and public education.
• The orchestrated campaign by right-wing extremists to deny jobs, family recognition and housing to LGBT couples is unjust. By any measure, LGBT people are frequent targets of discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.
• Federal and state efforts to discriminate serve only to destroy the same-sex families who make up our communities.

Cultural Perspective on Equal Marriage

• It was once illegal in many states for people of different races to marry. Just as we ended legal discrimination based on race, we should end discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender people.
• Lesbian and gay couples want to marry for the same reasons as heterosexual couples. No good reason exists for excluding same-sex couples from the protections and responsibilities of marriage.
• Civil marriage for gays and lesbians affirms the importance of the institution of marriage. Marriage is about love and commitment. Heterosexual love is not superior to homosexual love and vice versa. Partnerships should be seen as equal under the law regardless of the gender of the people in them.
• With changing norms and cultural diversity, our society is changing quickly and the definition of a family must change with the times to recognize lesbian and gay families. Allowing same-sex couples to marry shows our commitment to diversity, equality, tolerance and respect.
• There are many stereotypes surrounding same-sex relationships. Homosexuals and their relationships are often judged as a promiscuous and only about sex. These stereotypes need to be recognized and addressed. Lesbian and gay relationships (like heterosexual relationships) are about love and commitment. People who love each other and care about fairness and justice can fight for the equality of all people and support equal marriage.
• The institution of marriage is not static and has changed significantly over time. Married women used to be the legal property of their husbands, Asian immigrants were prohibited from marrying each other, and interracial marriages were prohibited by anti-miscegenation laws. A strong institution accommodates social and cultural shifts. Granting the LGBT community the right to marry is simply the evolution of human rights.

Why Not Civil Unions Instead of Marriage?

• Allowing same-sex couples civil marriage rights opens up marriage to more people and does not redefine religious marriage in our society.
• Separate is not equal. Marriage equality is a fundamental right. Same-sex couples cannot participate fully in our society if they are denied the legal rights and cultural privileges offered to heterosexual couples through marriage.
• Children benefit from legal marriage. One thing that both sides of the marriage issue can agree on is that marriage strengthens families—children are more secure if they are raised by two loving parents whose relationship is legally recognized and who can share the responsibility of parenthood equally. Children of gay and lesbian parents also benefit from the cultural acceptance of legal marriage.
• Civil unions and domestic partnerships are no substitute for civil marriage. Though an important advance in the fight for equality, civil unions and domestic partnerships do not carry the full legal benefits (especially government and tax benefits) or cultural significance of marriage. The substitution of civil unions for legal marriage assigns same-sex couples to second class status—separate and unequal.
• Civil unions only grant couples state benefits. Also, states differ in their eligibility rules for civil unions and states can decide whether or not to recognize civil unions at all. Civil unions do not provide couples with any federal benefits.

Read more: Marriage vs. Civil Unions

Responses to Conservative Arguments

• Allowing lesbian and gay couples to get legally married does not threaten nor take away rights from married heterosexual couples. Granting LGBT couples the right to marry does not weaken or destroy the marriages of heterosexuals.
• The personal life of a married couple does not influence anybody's life but their own. Despite this fact, many conservatives continue to step into the homes of LGBT individuals, claiming the need to ";defend marriage";. However, there is truly nothing to be defended—as the right to marriage should be decided by couples individually, and not by anyone demanding to make decisions on behalf of other couples.
• Anti-LGBT activists armed with empty sound bites – like "activist judges" and "protecting"; or "defending" marriage – are trying to obscure the real impact of these pernicious amendments and ballot initiatives that are attacking millions of families.
• Some conservatives and religious fundamentalists argue that because heterosexuals can procreate they should be entitled to marriage. Many heterosexuals cannot or do not wish to procreate. Should we ban them from marrying? Of course not. Because marriage is not about procreation – it is about love and commitment between two people.
• Some conservatives argue that gay marriage should not be allowed because homosexuality is unnatural. Conservatives made this argument thirty years ago as well when opposing interracial marriage. And who gets to say what is natural and what it is not?
• Right-wing conservatives argue lesbian and gay rights are special rights. Since only approximately 10% of the nation cannot marry (the LGBT community) then it would seem heterosexuals are the ones with special rights since they have the right to marry.

Religious Freedom and Marriage Equality

• The issue of marriage equality is also an issue of religious freedom. The struggle for same-sex marriage is about legal rights—it does not demand that any church perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. However, the government fails to ensure religious freedom when it refuses to honor the unions of same-sex couples performed by one religion in the same way it honors those of opposite-sex couples.
• Religious groups do not have to recognize civil marriages. Churches and other religious institutions would not have to recognize or perform ceremonies for these marriages. Some religious groups recognize lesbian and gay couples and others do not—government should not interfere with religion or impose one religion's beliefs on people who hold different beliefs.
• The United States was founded on the principle of separation of church and state. The government of the United States has no right to discriminate against the LGBT community because of a religious belief. If the government does base an amendment on religion to discriminate, governments will be favoring one religion over another because many religions support same-sex marriage.

---

Questions to Ask Those Who Oppose Equal Protection
for Lesbian and Gay Couples:

• Why shouldn't lesbian and gay people get the same protections under the law as heterosexual people?
• What's wrong with giving lesbian and gay couples in loving, committed relationships the same protections under the law as heterosexual couples?
• Why shouldn't a lesbian or gay person in a committed relationship be able to visit his or her partner in the hospital?
• Is it fair that lesbians and gay people who pay into the Social Security system their entire working lives don't get the same Social Security survivor benefits as their coworkers?