Column:

LGBTQ community deserves full rights

By Jordan Stein

Published Oct. 27, 2009

Last Thursday, the Senate passed the Matthew Shepard Act, extending protections against hate crimes to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning community by making it a federal crime to assault someone because of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Previously, I accused President Barack Obama of abandoning the LGBTQ community. I stand corrected. His speech at the National Equality March earlier this month and the passing of this bill are great efforts on his part.

Critics of this bill seem to think it's either unnecessary or it violates the First Amendment. This bill simply extends protection to the gay community and makes criminals motivated by hatred subject to existing hate crime punishments. It neither makes hateful speech illegal, nor endangers religious ideology in any way. Now, gay-bashing is a federal crime. How can that be bad?

Even with this bill, the fight is far from over. Obama is pushing for Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act. This would extend family benefits to lesbian and gay federal workers.

I have no idea why this is still a debate.

I will not be satisfied until a federal measure extends marriage rights to all citizens. There is no rational or logical argument for keeping citizens from accessing this right. When we talk about whether citizens should be allowed to do something most others can do, it seems we don't want to extend full citizenship to those excluded people.

Some critics say the issue should be left to the states. But what happens when a state, such as California, decides to grant rights then take them away? Under law, states can flip-flop between allowing same-sex marriage by law and taking it away through other avenues. This means couples who enjoy marriage rights can never be certain these rights won't be taken away.

What really happens when states are left to decide this issue is equality is ignored. The federal government needs to step in and keep bigotry out of marriage statutes.

That's what we're really talking about here: bigotry. When you say you are in favor of civil unions but not same-sex marriage, you're saying that those commitments are not as good as "regular marriage," and gay and lesbian couples can't be a part of it. That is basically the same reasoning as "separate but equal."

Some people make a religious argument against same-sex marriage. Although there's not enough room in this column to point out how ridiculous those arguments are, laws are not supposed to be dictated by Christian morality. Gay marriage does not violate anyone's religious freedom and religious arguments have no place in discussions of the practical application of American law.

This is a sticky issue but not because there is a hard solution. Instead, it's hard to admit as a country, we've been acting like it's 1950 instead of 2009 and it's hard to change the status quo. But, it's easy to say, "It's about states' rights" or "I support civil unions but not gay marriage."

It's easy to say, so that's why we say it. You can call it what you want, but denying the LGBTQ community equal rights is a slap in the face to everything America is supposed to be about. Freedom, liberty and equality are the only things gay couples are asking for.