^
rtiifri' >Vk ’^' *■'«««
^e twists and turns
d to marriage equality
1993
Courts in Hawaii
rule that not
allowing same-
gender couples to
marry was
unconsitututional.
Law soon passed
definining
marriage solely
between one man
and one woman.
2003
Photo by Michael Jerch
■*tcie and (^hantelle Fishcr-Bome
fif^'gender
e^rry, the
t^tutional
and
li'*tarriage
0^ its two
grant
;(^ resulted
l^tmions
at the
c^of the
i^th civil
[/^rniont,
J^'^ned”in
l/'® to find
State
V.
sl|tlirough
state’s
5^ gender
^ itidicial
(^'^aited
The
Massachusetts
State Court rules
that the state’s
refusal to issue
marriage licenses
to same-gender
couples is
unconstiutional.
1996
President Clinton
signed the Federal
Defense of
Marriage Act —
defining marriage
as between one
man and one
woman and
stating same-
gender marriages
in one state did
not have to be
recognized in
another.
2004
San Fransicso
Mayor orders the
County Clerk’s
ofHce to begin
issuing marriage
licenses to same-
gender couples.
decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Indeed, just as the rabidly
homophobic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
predicted, the destruction of sodomy laws across the
nation proved to be the first step towards paving the
long road towards marriage equality. Using Lawrence v.
Texas to support the extension of marriage law to
include same-gender couples may seem incoherent to
some people. However, it becomes clear how this is
reasonable when it is understood just how potent an
effect sodomy laws had on stigmatizing LGBTIQ
people. Anti-sodomy statutes deem all sexual interaction
between same-gender couples criminal activity, therefore
all LGBTIQ people could then be considered potential
continued on page 14
V , s\v w A'xlV v''
9
Marriage:
Sacred? Says who?
Immutable? Hardly.
By Doug Dukeman
Once again, the U.S. debate surrounding marriage
has made headlines. The 2004 Presidential candidates
already are being asked questions about their support
of same-gender marriages, civil unions, domestic
partnership benefits and a number of other questions
concerning LGBTIQ rights. The answers politicians
give fall into three categories. Most Democrats give
their support to ideas of civil unions and domestic
partnership benefits, emphasizing that the decision
should be left up to individual states. Most Republicans
refuse all recognition of same-gender marriages. The
third camp includes people like the Democratic
Presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kudnich and the
Democratic Presidential candidate the Rev. M Sharpton
continued on pages 15,16
What exactly are
we fighing for?
By Sarah Carucci
Back in October, George W Bush joined a coalition
of ultra-conservative groups in attacking the LGBTIQ
community by issuing a proclamation declaring the
existence of “^larriage Protection Week.” One of the
main goals stated by “Marriage Protection Week”
coalition representatives was to garner support for the
Federal Marriage Amendment, a divisive measure that
seeks to permanently deny civil marriage to same-gender
couples, and a measure to which Bush has recently
pledged his full support. Through rhetoric teeming with
homophobia and paranoia, this band of hyper
fundamentalists has painted an imaginary world where
the traditional heterosexual institution of marriage is
teetering on the edge of extinction. They profess that
because same-gender marriage has become a legal
possibility, the traditional concept of matrimony may
face utter annihilation.
Indeed, the rhetoric they use is masterful in making
it appear that the LGBTIQ population of the United
States could pose some sort of threat to the heterosexual
standard of living. The “Marriage Protection Week’s”
mission statement reads that the “institution of marriage
is under attack. There are those who want to redefine
marriage to include two men, or two women,
continued on page 14