Last week, two state senators faced off on a local radio show, debating the merits of same-sex marriage. On the pro side was Sen. Daylin Leach (D-17th Dist.); on the con, Sen. John Eichelberger (R-30th Dist.).
Earlier this month, Leach introduced a bill to provide same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania; last month, Eichelberger announced he would introduce a bill to amend the state constitution to limit marriage in Pennsylvania to one man and one woman. Pennsylvania already has a law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
The dialogue between the senators was telling and ignited a firestorm from gay-rights activists. One specific comment many took umbrage with was Eichelberger’s statement, “We’re allowing them to exist.”
This week, he clarified his statement to PGN, saying he was referring to allowing gay couples to exist under the law.
That is to say, same-sex relationships are no longer outlawed.
How very enlightened of him.
Eichelberger also stated opposite-sex marriage is meant to “reward people for actions that reward our society” and that marriage is “devalued” when society tampers with the institution.
Exactly how or why that might happen was not discussed.
Eichelberger also stated that same-sex couples aren’t being punished for being in same-sex relationships.
Except, they are.
Regardless of one’s opinion on the institution of marriage, it still affords participants certain benefits. If it didn’t, no one would get married, tradition or otherwise.
Marriage, which began as a financial arrangement so that men could have exclusive sexual access to women and pass property to their offspring, has evolved into a symbolic rite with myriad privileges. Among the benefits are tax breaks, power of attorney, hospital-visitation rights, lower insurance costs and inheritance benefits. For many of these benefits, not being able to marry one’s partner equates to a financial cost — specifically, higher taxes.
While higher taxes are not technically a “punishment” in the legal sense of the word, they do mean that gays and lesbians are not treated equally under the law.
Which brings us to Leach’s argument in the debate: that not allowing same-sex couples to marry is discriminatory and denies them the benefits, rights and responsibilities given to opposite-sex couples.
Though LGBT activists are divided on whether now is the right time to push for marriage — employment nondiscrimination laws would have a more far-reaching effect — it’s good to see that the discussion has progressed, and LGBT allies are pushing the issue.