Loading Poll...The Right to Love
William J. Richards is the Director of New Media for the Hall Institute of Public Policy. His research interests include aerospace policy, science education, information technology in the democratic process, and civil rights.
This Valentine’s Day, thousands of men and women throughout New Jersey and the rest of the nation will marry or become engaged. Thousands more would like to, but are prohibited from doing so, simply because of whom it is they wish to marry.
Gays and lesbians in the Garden State are currently relegated to second class citizenship. Under our state’s laws, we can marry whoever we love, whoever we wish to spend the rest of our lives with – provided that they are of the opposite sex. But if you love someone of the same sex? Too bad.
What is the logic behind this prohibition? Many opponents of marriage equality will claim that their opposition is to "protect the sanctity of marriage”. But in states where same-sex marriage is legal, there does not appear to be any precipitous drop in the marriage rate of heterosexual couples. And why would same-sex marriage impact marriage as an institution?
Other opponents would argue that this prohibition should exist on religious grounds. But what business is that of the state? If you are a Catholic, or a Muslim, or of any faith that does not approve of same-sex marriage, nobody is asking your particular church of temple to perform same-sex marriages against their will. The fact that any one church would discriminate should not influence public policy for that impacts all citizens, regardless of their faith.
This week the New Jersey Senate passed S-1, which would have New Jersey join seven other states that currently allow same-sex marriage A-1, its companion bill in the Assembly will be voted on Thursday, and is expected to pass. Governor Christie has promised to veto this bill if it reaches his desk, instead insisting that this should be a ballot measure – the people should decide if marriage equality is something we want.
This idea sounds great. Democracy is a wonderful thing. Who would stand in the way of something as fundamentally American as the democratic process? But what if the people vote it down? Would that make it right?
This year will mark the 45th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court’s landmark case Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage. It was the Judiciary, not the people that ensured that this right was protected. At the time, in 1960s America, there is little chance that a referendum to allow interracial marriage would have passed. Would that have been right? Should the will of the majority have dictated the rights of the minority in that case? Half a century later, the answer seems obvious to most of us. Yet this is the very same question today – should we place limitations on which consenting adults have the right to marry?
Our society, its laws, and everything that it stems from are based on certain assumptions. The most basic is the concept that human rights are inherent and inalienable – government does not, can not grant them, but simply guarantees that it will protect them. These are so fundamental that they are not up for a vote, not up for debate.
I would love for New Jersey to lead, to show the nation that our people are so tolerant and accepting of the rights of our fellow citizens. It would be a big win for the marriage equality movement to have a state to point to where the people decided to protect marriage equality. But the question is too important. This is a civil right. It cannot be left up for debate.
# # #