DOMA could do more harm

Defense of Marriage Act could do more harm




By Stewart Shaw | Community columnist

.
Sponsors frequently bestow an honorific title on proposed legislation in order to garner support for it. For example, the No Child Left Behind Act, the Patriot Act and the Defense of Marriage Act. Children, patriotism and marriage are almost sacred American values. As ideals that we support, they stand right behind apple pie, baseball and Chevrolet. Giving legislation such titles encourages our immediate support. But sometimes the legislation may do the opposite of what its honorific title suggests it will do.

Thus we have the No Child Left Behind Act, which removes federal financial support from schools whose children do not score high enough on tests that their teachers do not write. Where does that leave those children?

And we have the Patriot Act, adopted in the grip of post Sept.11 fear. Toward the goal of greater security it denies us basic freedoms, and permits investigative bureaus of the federal government to snoop on our private conservations. It goes farther to remove the guarantees of the liberties that our Founding Fathers — the original patriots — fought for than any other legislation in our nation’s history.

And then there is the Defense of Marriage Act. Does it really defend marriage? Or would marriage actually be stronger if gay unions were socially acceptable, and gay couples enjoyed the same legal rights that heterosexual couples do?

The Defense of Marriage Act allows states in which same sex marriages are not legal to refuse to recognize those which are performed in states where they are legal. It also prohibits the federal government from recognizing for any purpose marriages between persons of the same gender.

Opponents of same sex marriages are asking Congress to strengthen barriers to same sex unions by submitting to the state legislators an amendment to the federal constitution which would define marriage as a legal contract that could only be entered into by one man and one woman. They say this constitutional amendment is needed to prevent states from enacting legislation which allows same sex marriage.

Opponents respond that amending the constitution should be used to expand the freedoms individuals enjoy, as it was when the former slaves and women were allowed to vote, not to restrict them. They argue further that people of the same gender who are in loving, intimate, committed, long-term relationships ought to have the same legal privileges and protections that couples of different genders have.

At first blush, it might seem that the act was focused on preserving my marriage. But I don’t need a constitutional amendment to defend it. Kay and I recently celebrated our 46th anniversary, and neither of us shows signs of sexual orientation toward people of our own gender. And if you think the preservation of your marriage requires a constitutional amendment, you might do better to look for a more immediate cause of its shakiness.

No, if a constitutional amendment is required to defend marriage, we must be talking about the institution, not your marriage or mine. There is no doubt but what marriage between two individuals is important for maintaining a stable social order, and for raising children who grow up to be emotionally healthy, happy and contributing adult members of society.

And there is no question but what marriage in American society is undergoing challenges of crisis proportions. About 50 percent of couples divorce before death do them part.

And extramarital sexual unions are increasingly more widely accepted, although sooner or later they inevitably result in severe strains on the relationship between husband and wife, even in instances where the marriage is preserved. So there is no doubt that marriage is in need of defense. The question is whether banning same sex marriages will help us do that.

Because of the intimacy of the relationships, and our respect for privacy, it is better to use fictional stories to understand the dynamics of sexual unions, rather than real alliances, in order to consider how marriages are preserved and destroyed. And it is helpful to consider fictional accounts that are widely known to readers.

The widely popular movie “Brokeback Mountain” probably reflects some of the dynamics of the relationships that many people who are sexually attracted to another person of the same gender find themselves in. Jack and Ennis are hired by a ranch owner to watch sheep grazing in a remote mountain wilderness in Wyoming.

But for once-a-week contact with a supplies provider, another man, their only human contact is with each other. Although engaged to Alma to be married, Ennis is attracted to Jack, and Jack to Ennis. Their relationship terminates at the close of summer, when their employment as shepherds ends.

Subsequently both men marry and father children, but neither one can forget the other. Under the guise of “fishing trips,” their sporadic relationship continues for 20 years. Having discovered the nature of Ennis’ friendship with Jack, Alma divorces him. After Jack’s death, Ennis’ telephone call to Jack’s widow, Lurleen, reveals that her marriage also was not a very satisfying one.

Had same-sex marriage been legal, and socially accepted, Ennis might have broken off his engagement with Alma, and Jack might never have married Lurleen. Two largely unsuccessful marriages might not have taken place.

Permitting same sex unions and even encouraging them when two people in a loving, long-term and committed relationship are sexually attracted to one another might actually help strengthen the institution of marriage. It would probably reduce the number of unsatisfactory marriages between unhappy men and women, and the number of divorces.

The Defense of Marriage Act might be more accurately named the Destruction of Marriage Act. And the institution of marriage will probably fare better if the proposed constitutional amendment barring same sex marriages in all the states is not approved.

Stewart Shaw is a former Winona State University registrar who is getting a second education in retirement. He also volunteers for several local organizations.