Joey Jabaley

There is nothing particularly extraordinary about growing up in a small rural Georgia town. In the early seventies, in a quiet community of about a thousand people, there existed a patchwork of businesses and institutions that you might expect in any southern town this size. There were a couple of churches, Methodist and Baptist. Black people had separate churches, but they were still the same two Protestant denominations. There were two schools, one on either side of town, a post office, a general store, and a truck stop. We lived on the western edge of town in a five bedroom, two bath house. Our house had come together as a result of piecemeal additions made throughout my childhood as our family grew to a total of six children.

On one side of our house was the truck stop. We lived on Hwy 29, which was the main trucking route through the area until the interstate highway came through. On the other side of our house was a much smaller house with the sort of shingle type faux brick siding that usually identified the occupants as slightly poorer or less fortunate.

The family that lived in that small house consisted of an older man, his wife, and their son. From my recollection, their son must have been in his mid twenties. I vaguely remember going next door as a young boy. I don�t think that I went very much though, and shortly I was forbidden to go there at all.

As a youngster, my view of people was yet untainted by adult prejudices and opinions. I saw the world through innocent eyes. I never recognized anything strange about the family next door. It was only when I heard adults talk about how Ronnie, the young man next door, was a little strange that I knew he was different. I heard someone say that when Ronnie was a baby his father often drank too much. One time when he was drunk he banged Ronnie�s head against the wall. That was why Ronnie was the way he was.

Looking back I realize that even as I got older, I still didn�t really understand what Ronnie was all about. I knew he was different and that people in the community thought that he was strange to such an extent that my parents wouldn�t really even talk about him. I came to know that the thing about Ronnie was that he dressed up like a girl. That was something that you just didn�t do. People in small towns are fond of saying that they don�t care what you do in the privacy of your own home as long as you don�t flaunt it in front of people. Ronnie worked in a factory and I seem to remember he always had a new car. I think the last one I remember was a Ford Mustang. He used to sit in that Mustang up at the top of the driveway and talk on his CB radio to the truck drivers at the truck stop on the other side of our house. There was not such thing as cable TV then, and every time he would click that mic to transmit, our TV would pick up the whole thing. I don�t ever remember hearing anything too shocking, but then again if we had everyone would have just pretended nothing had happened.

Other than being a little afraid of him, I never gave Ronnie much thought. In retrospect, I kind of think that he was very brave. To have the strength of character to be yourself, especially a transvestite, in a small Georgia town, in the early seventies, must have taken a lot of guts.

Each day we struggle to be true to ourselves � to live up to our own expectations. Most of us don�t want to follow the crowd if we don�t really agree with it. We want to be proud of who we are and where we stand on any issue. That may prove to be more of a daily effort sometimes than most of us could have ever imagined. As much as we want to be ourselves, we are heavily influenced by our need to fit in and feel part of our communities. This need to conform and to feel commonality with other members of our communities is very powerful. It could partly explain some people�s hesitancy to support initiatives for same sex marriage. It could explain the tendency of many people to support either actively or through silence, discrimination against any number of groups. In fact, it could also explain why some lesbian and gay members of society want same sex marriage. In each of these cases, the behavior manifests itself because those exhibiting the behavior want to fit in. They want to identify and be identified with other members of their communities. Pastor Martin Neimoller very eloquently states why some of this behavior is ultimately detrimental.

What many of us may fail to consider is the lesson of Pastor Neimoller�s statement. Each of us, while members of the larger community, are also members of one or more smaller groups within that community. The smaller groups share various common differences from the larger group, i.e., ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. Though we might not ourselves feel that we have a personal opposition against any particular group, and it may be easier to remain silent or just agree with the majority, is it worth risking our own personal liberties and freedom?

Marriage is something that effects us all personally. For a group of Americans, that avenue is closed. For them, marriage is something that they will have to work for and fight for even though the majority of us take it for granted. It may make them angry, but ultimately they will be more determined. The current state of the movement to legalize same sex marriage is similar to the opening story. Like Ronnie, lesbians and gays are continuing to be themselves. They come together as couples, forming marriages in the face of overwhelming opposition. In addition to the lack of legal and social recognition, there is the majority�s insistence that their difference substantiates the system of apartheid against gays and lesbians, treating them in an inferior manor despite their identical circumstances (Demian, par. 2).

Coupling and marriage on a social level are forms of personal expression. On a civil level they protect us and those who we choose to call family. They say something about who we are in our society and how that society views us. Differences often cause conflict and disagreement, but in this country we pride ourselves in our ability to overcome these differences. American culture is all about celebrating diversity. A Patriotic Finale is a song from the off Broadway musical When Pigs Fly. One of the lyrics sums it all up.

Should America embrace the idea of same sex marriage? Should identical social and legal consideration be given equally to same gender couples as to discordant gender couples? The continued evolution of American society as a morally progressive nation depends on it. As a nation proud of its diverse composition, founded on the basis of equal human rights for all its citizens, it cannot be avoided. The future legal security and peace of mind of hundreds of thousands of United States citizens hangs in the balance as this debate rages on.

There is a large contingent of American citizenry that are outraged by the very notion that the relationships between same sex couples would even be considered marriage. In their view, the very definition requires that married couples be comprised of one man and one woman. Any redefining of marriage to accommodate other types of unions would undermine the institution. The result would then be the dismantling of the family which is a fundamental building block in the foundation on which the nation is built. Conventional marriage, or that which is currently legally available to discordant gender couples, is distinct from same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is available to some degree socially, but legally it has no status.

Powerful meanings are packed into the little word "marriage" by American society. The word implies a lot more than its literal definition might lead one to believe. According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, marriage is defined as "the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family." The Defense of Marriage Act(DOMA) became law on September 21, 1996. This law defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." It goes on to further clarify that "spouse" only refers to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife. A child asking an adult for the first time what marriage means would probably be taught something along the lines that marriage is something that happens when two people love each other and want to spend their lives together. They get married. Often the explanation may not clearly state that there would be one man and one woman, but the implied message is there. From the very beginning of most children�s lives, heterosexuality is the norm. This "norm" is reinforced in almost every aspect of our society, from music to folklore to advertising to social construction. All of these varying definitions are correct though they only touch on some of the highlights. Actually there are hundreds of implied meanings that come together each time the word marriage is uttered. This makes it clear that the multiple legal and literal definitions together with society�s contemporary, yet constantly evolving perceptions of what constitutes marriage are important in gaining an insight into how we as individuals come to define marriage and thus how we as a country view this institution.

In an examination of the meaning(s) attached to the institution of marriage in American society, separating them into three broad categories promotes clarity in the analysis. Initially, a brief discussion of the history will serve to highlight the influences that have formed the foundation for contemporary beliefs. The underpinnings of the American point of view on marriage go back at least as far as the Greeks and Romans in pre-Christian Europe. The second category is the sociological aspect. This will also include any religious connotations. The final is the legal aspect. Here we are speaking of all the rights and responsibilities currently awarded opposite sex couples. These would include the 1049 federal laws that are effected legally. They are outlined in a letter from Barry R. Bedrick, Associate General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, General Accounting Office letter to Henry J. Hyde, chairman of the House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary. This would also pertain to any municipal laws which vary from state to state.

Understanding the meanings, both literal and implied, of the word marriage from an historic position, and how their connotations, through various translations and applications have evolved is important in an analysis of the current American palate for same sex marriage. The socio-anthropological record of man documents the existence of same sex unions throughout world history. While the acceptable characterization of America as a melting pot, made up of a variety of cultural and religious backgrounds must be given consideration, history and the popular majority dictate that the Judeo-Christian influence take precedence in a focus on the development of the contemporary perspective. The rise of the gay liberation movement, the increased visibility of gay people in American society, and the capacity of provocative topics like same sex marriage to sell advertisement for print, radio, and television have not necessarily served to educate the public on the foundation for their collective points of view.

With the rise of Christianity in the third and fourth centuries, a Christian legend was born in the story of Serge and Bacchus. Hailed in ancient story and song by the early church as representative of the Christian ideals of faith and love, both were persecuted for their faith. Perhaps less popularized through history in the telling of the story of these famous paired saints, is that their relationship is generally characterized as one much like a married heterosexual couple (Boswell 147). During their lives, the church continued to grow in popularity and acceptance while the Roman Empire�s power continued to wane. The church began to assert its influence, and took a position as a strong proponent of marriage for the sole purpose of procreation. While same-sex relationships still existed, the values and standards of the day increasingly viewed the goal of sex, not as a means to experience pleasure, but strictly as a means for procreation. Sex for pleasure was bad. Homosexual pleasure was worse since there was no chance it would result in reproduction. While the intent here is not to give a chronological history of the evolution of prevailing western attitudes toward same sex unions, it is pertinent to note how far back in history the notion appeared that marriage did not necessarily imply love, but was seen as a vital means of insuring the survival of the race. Previously, marriage had served primarily as a legal means of insuring heirs and passing along property. The consequences of the birth of this concept are evident today where the first question usually asked after a couple gets married are, "When are you two going to start a family?"

Sociologically speaking, in American society today, typically, but not always, marriage implies at the very least love, intimacy, monogamy, family, procreation, and commitment. This list is not all inclusive, nor do these implications hold true for everyone. A new marriage also usually incurs an enormous outpouring amount of public and private support which manifests itself in various forms. In many cases large gifts both material and monetary are given to a newly married couple as a show of support from family and friends. Looking deeper into the meanings of these implications and reactions we can broaden our analysis and enhance our understanding as to whether there are any significant differences between the same sex couple and the discordant gender couple.

The word "love" like "marriage" is infused with meaning. The love that marriage implies can be of one or more types existing on different levels. Marriage can encompass one or several of these types in varying combinations. It can be platonic love where the partners involved love each other as friends. This is manifested through shared common interests and or respect for one another�s abilities, i.e., both partners enjoy the outdoors, or one appreciates the other�s knowledge of computers while his/her particular artistic abilities are more remarkable. Love can be sexual love. Clearly American culture still has difficulty discussing anything sexual. Our hesitancy with regard to sex education in schools, condom distribution, and even open discussion of likes and dislikes among monogamous participants harkens back to the pre-Christian era where sex was for procreation only and sex just for pleasure was bad. In any case, sexual love does exist. American society markets almost every conceivable product based on the precept that buying a certain pair of jeans, smoking a particular cigarette, driving a certain car, or eating a certain food will make you "sexy" and able to attract someone that might lead to sexual love.

Intimacy, like love, can have sexual implications, but is generally used to connote a deeper more emotional meaning and familiarity. As a relationship grows and the couple gets to know each other so well that they are sometimes characterized by others as able to finish each other sentences, or read each others thoughts. This infers intimacy.

Monogamy refers to having only one partner or mate. Monogamous persons will not be married to more than one person at a time, nor will they engage in sexual relations with anyone other than their chosen mate. While considered an ideal in contemporary American society, supported by moral and religious beliefs, monogamy is not founded on historic precedent. Although most mainstream religious practices dictate monogamy as a key component in living an upstanding and moral life, there are many Americans, both married and unmarried, that do not choose to practice monogamy.

When two people get married, even before there are any children that have resulted from that union, they are recognized by American society as being a family. Generally, it is almost considered a foregone conclusion that marriage will result in procreation, thereby helping the new family to grow. In many cases this is true, although American society does not bestow an alternate appellation to couples who either choose not to have children or who biologically are unable to have children.

Commitment as an implication of marriage probably has its foundation in the historical perspective of marriage where the female member of the couple was viewed as property and vehicle for the production of heirs. Although there is much more focus today on an equitable arrangement between the two members of a couple, there is still evidence of a propensity to fall back to traditional gender rolls. Ideally, commitment as related to marriage refers to the support that members of a couple pledge to show for each other throughout the relationship. By putting each other first before friends and even biological family, by being the primary contributor to the other�s well being either emotionally, physically, or financially members of a couple recognize and are recognized as being "committed."

If we scrutinize each of these components of marriage; love, intimacy, monogamy, family, procreation, and commitment, as they could related to same sex couples, do we find any evidence that gay couples have the capacity to participate in this institution by contemporary American standards? Can same sex couples love? Clearly they have the ability to love sexually. The sexual nature of their relationships is most often cited by opponents as the primary issue. Statistics that show the growing number of monogamous, same sex couples would seem to refute any accusation that they are in any way more perverted than any discordant gender couples. Comments like, "That boy is a little strange, but he sure does love his Mama" or, "I�m so proud of my daughter. I just wish she�d let me dress her up a little. She�s got such a pretty face!" while not scientific evidence would seem to indicate the ability on the part of gays and lesbians to experience familial love. Other remarks like "You�re my best friend no matter who you go out with" support their ability to give and receive platonic love. When gay and lesbian couples were polled in gay pride parades all over the country by the makers of the film, The Right to Marry, the overwhelming majority of responses to the question "Why do you want to get married" was "Because we love each other." The ability to love seems to equally apply to same sex couples as it does to discordant gender couples.

Are same sex couples capable of intimacy? If length of relationships, duration, and familiarity are the essential elements defining intimacy, there is clear evidence of long term relationships in the gay and lesbian community. Of the couples currently suing for the right to marry in the cases pending in Vermont and Hawaii, all have been in long term relationships characterized as "marriage-like" for four years or more. In terms of the definition here, same sex couples appear capable of intimacy.

Only in recent history has monogamy been seen as such a key element of marriage; however, for the purposes of discussing the ability of same sex couples to be monogamous in conformity with the current norms that American society dictates for participating in the institution of marriage the focus will remain on current accepted standards. A 1988 survey undertaken by Steve Bryant and Demian, Ed.D., co-directors of Partners Task Force For Gay & Lesbian Couples of 1,266 couples � 706 lesbian couples (56%) and 560 male couples (44%) showed that 91% of the women and 63% of the men were in monogamous relationships. This would seem to be an indication that same sex couples are capable of monogamy.

Many members of same sex couples that have children were previously in heterosexual relationships. If these people have retained custody of their children, it is reasonable to assume that their ability to form a family either physically or emotionally is not really in question. In the previously referred to 1988 survey, 22% of the women and 10% of the men had one or more children. As American society is particularly sensitive about its offspring, many of the most emotional opposing views to same sex relationships and marriage have to do with the effects on children. How are the children going to feel if they have to go to school and tell the teacher that they have two mommies or two daddies instead of one mommy and daddy like all the other kids. Deductively, one can reason that if same sex marriage was civilly sanctioned, it would also be demystified, rendering the above example no more traumatic than the child coming from a household with a different ethnicity, religion, or economic status. Further, the recent landmark ruling in New Jersey in favor of Jon and Michael Galluccio, a same sex couple, in their fight to jointly adopt would seem to indicate changing judicial attitudes as well. In summary, same sex couples seem exhibit the necessary abilities to form families.

Are same sex couples able to be committed to one another in the same way as discordant gender couples? The fact that so many of them desire to remain together in the face of huge odds would seem to make that a given; however, some hard evidence of that would seem to lie in the recent passage of domestic partnership laws in cities around the country. Cities like San Francisco and more recently Seattle are not only offering benefits to city employees, but requiring that any companies that do business with the city extend domestic partner benefits to all of their employees as well. The fact that gays and lesbians have come this far indicates the importance they place on their relationships.

Based on the preceding discussion, what might the lingering reason(s) be for denying same sex couples participation in the institution of marriage in America? There is evidence that they meet at least these mentioned criteria for marriage from a social standpoint. If all the social requirements are met, will America continue to segregate a group of its citizens by denying them the right to marry?

Sociologically, same sex couples are making some progress. Homosexuality is a familiar subject in the news media. It is enjoying a growing visibility in the entertainment media as well. The Disney owned network ABC stood behind Ellen DeGeneres when she outed herself on syndicated television. The President of the United States called for an end of discrimination against gays in the military. Many religious denominations like the Unitarians, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians are seeking broader accommodation of their gay members. None of these examples can be cited as an unqualified success. The sitcom Ellen was cancelled shortly after the long anticipated coming out episode. The Don�t Ask, Don�t Tell policy adopted by the United States military was a major disappointment at best to the constituency it was designed to benefit. The religious right, under the auspices of Christianity, has successfully galvanized support for its anti-gay positions including DOMA at the federal level and similar local legislation in various states. The proof of the progress lies in the dialog and the discussion. It is still within recent memory that the United States had a president who wouldn�t even utter the word AIDS. To have a serious, non-stereotypical gay character on a nationally syndicated television show was until recently unheard of. The fact that not only one, but several nationally recognized an respected religious organizations are even entertaining gay issues is no less than a breakthrough.

Under the current American legal system, there is no way that a same gender couple can attain the same rights and status as an opposite gender couple summarily obtains when they legally marry. Even with vast resources and savvy legal counsel and representation, there are not enough alternate legal avenues to give equal protection. There are state and federal benefits such as tax advantages and inheritance rights that are available once a couple can produce a legal marriage certificate. In all there are 1049 federal laws broken down into over 13 categories that contain marriage as a factor(Bedrick 2-3).

Ironically, recent years have seen the passage of several pieces of federal and state legislation that have bolstered gay rights in America. From the New Jersey ruling forbidding the Boy Scouts of America to discriminate based on sexual orientation to the growing number of states who have begun to allow same sex couples to adopt jointly, to 1996 Supreme Court ruling in Romer v. Evans finding government bias against homosexuals was unconstitutional, gay issues are taking center stage more than ever. Simultaneously 29 states have passed legislation prohibiting same sex marriage or the recognition of same sex marriages performed in other states. The lack of continuity by state and federal government in their interpretations has not prevented the continued grass roots efforts by communities and their organizations to forge ahead. New York City has provided health and dental benefits to the domestic partners of its employees since 1993. A challenge was brought forth to the city�s domestic partnership law by the American Center for Law and Justice. The claim was that the state was solely responsible for legislating marriage and domestic partnership was defeated.

Does America still see herself as the world�s most shining example of liberty and justice for all? Can we continue to celebrate ourselves as such while we knowingly relegate a group of our own to a substandard class just for being different? Our own history contains examples of how doing so can divide and nearly destroy a nation. Obviously, the definition of marriage is an ever evolving social construct. If our convictions and the pillars upon which we have built our country are to survive, we must be willing to cast off ignorance and fear. We must embrace the diversity that defines us and makes us great. We must continue to uphold the principles of equality and justice. Supporting these ideals means that same sex couples must be allowed to marry if they so choose. The following passage by Bruce Cockburn describes the challenge faced by America�s gay and lesbian community in their quest for the right to marry, but the last line in particular holds a message for the whole country.

Barillas, Christopher. "Gay Marriage California Expected To Pass Statewide DP Bill." The Gay Financial Network 19 Jan. 1999. 30 Sept. 1999

---. "Marriage Watch: California and Vermont To Consider Gay Marriage." The Gay Financial Network 15 Nov. 1998. 07 Oct. 1999

---. "Gay Marriage: Hawaii Ponders New Legal Issues." The Gay Financial Network

---. "Marriage: Hawaii's Governor Proposes DP Bill." The Gay Financial Network

Bedrick, Barry R. Letter to Henry J. Hyde. 31 January 1997. B-275860.

Bolte, Angela. "Do wedding dresses come in lavender? The prospects and implications of same-sex marriage." WilsonSelect. 15 Nov. 1999

Boswell, John. Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe. New York: Villard Books,1994.

Bowe, Marty. Personal interview. 19 Nov. 1999.

The Case for Same Sex Marriage Book Home Page. 06 Dec. 1999 <http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/index.html>.

Chauncey, George. Gay New York. London: Flamingo, 1995.

Demian, D. "Marrying Apartheid." The Gay Financial Network 30 Nov. 1998. 30 Sept.

Human Rights Campaign Marriage Page. 18 Nov. 1999 <http://www.hrc.org/issues/marriage/index.html>.

Jackson-Paris, Rod, and Bob Jackson-Paris. Straight From the Heart A Love Story. New York: Warner, 1994.

Karamanoglou, Alex. "Couple Plans Service Without Official OK." The Gay Financial Network 08 Sept. 1999. 30 Sept. 1999

Lewin, Ellen. Recognizing Ourselves. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998.

Marcus, Eric. Together Forever. New York: Anchor Books, 1998.

Martinac, Paula. The Lesbian & Gay Book of Love & Marriage. New York: Broadway Books, 1998.

McCuen, Gary E. Homo-sexuality & Gay Rights Ideas in Conflict. Hudson, WI: Gary E. McCuen Publications, Inc., 1994.

McGovern, Tom. "Presbyterian Panel Oks Holy Unions." New York Blade News 3 (1999): 1, 4.

Mohr, Richard D. A More Perfect Union. Boston: Beacon Press, 1994.

National Center for Health Statistics. 02 Dec. 1999 <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/>.

Newman, Jeffery L. "Colorado Bans Gay Marriage" The Gay Financial Network 20 Feb. 1999. 30 Sept. 1999

Rotello, Gabriel. "Gay and lesbian rights." WilsonSelect. 15 Nov. 1999

Roleff, Tamara L., ed. Gay Marriage. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998.

Schepp, David. "'Will & Grace' Cast Knock Ballot Measure." The Gay Financial

Soulforce Home Page. 02 Dec. 1999 <http://www.soulforce.org/>.

Sprock, Charles. "Building Real Property Partnership Agreements." The Gay Financial Network 30 August 1999. 30 Sept. 1999

Stiers, Gretchen A. From this Day Forward. New York: St. Martin�s Press, 1999.

Sullivan, Andrew. Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con A Reader. New York: Vintage Books, 1997.

The Right to Marry. Prod. Demian. Sweet Corn Productions. Videocassette. 1996.

U. S. Census Bureau Home Page. 02 Dec. 1999 <http://www.census.gov/>.

Waldrop, Mark. "A Patriotic Finale." Perf. John Treacy Egan & Company. When Pigs Fly. BMG, 1996.

Walen, Alec. "The Defense of Marriage Act and authoritarian morality." WilsonSelect. 15 Nov. 1999

Williams, Mary E., ed. Homosexuality Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1999.

WWWebster Dictionary. 1999. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 02 Dec. 1999. <http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm>.