Pictured Evan Wolfson. Photo by Rex Wockner
It was a call to arms that the roughly 200 people in attendance heard from Evan Wolfson, founder and executive director of Freedom to Marry, and Pat Logue, senior counsel at Lambda Legal. A call to link arms with friends and allies in the fight for marriage equality.
Both spoke at a discussion presented jointly by the American Constitution Society (Chicago Lawyer Chapter), the Chicago Bar Association, Espiritu & Associates, Lambda Legal, and Jenner & Block LLP. The event took place Jan. 26, in the plush offices of Jenner & Block. Following a brief cocktail reception, the crowd of lawyers, activists, academics, students, and other interested parties (including a young female judge) assembled in a large conference room.
Wolfson, named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America by the National Law Review, spoke first, outlining the moral and social significance of marriage. He focused on the concept of dignity and explained how being prevented from marrying affects gay relationships: 'This denial is shameful, it is un-American, it is wrong, it is contrary to the arch of history and we are the ones who are privileged to be here today at a moment in time when history is bending and we can change and eliminate this injustice … . By claiming the word 'marriage', by getting the country to put the words 'gay and lesbian', 'same-sex couple', and 'marriage' in the same sentence, we found a way of crystallizing a whole new understanding of who we are, what we seek and how wrong the exclusion is.'
He then placed the gay marriage issue in a broader perspective by pointing out numerous historical outrages related to marriage in general. Among them the fact that in certain states it was only a few generations ago (1967) that people of different races were finally allowed to marry; and the scandalous marital rape exemption (by which a man could not be accused of raping his wife), which was invalidated in the state of New York as recently as 1984. He added that the Supreme Court extended the right to marry to prisoners in 1987, thus making the ban on gay marriage increasingly difficult to justify.
As part of an enthusiastic and meticulously organized presentation, Wolfson divided the modern gay civil-rights movement in two 17-year chapters. The first one starting with Stonewall in 1969 and lasting until the 1986 Supreme Court decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, which essentially created a second-class citizen status for gay people by denying them the right to privacy. The second chapter, a more encouraging one, came to a close last year with the milestone ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which explicitly asserted gay individuals the right to 'liberty' and 'personal freedom'. According to Wolfson, we are now inexorably engaged on the road to full equality and last year's recommendation on same-sex marriage by the Massachusetts Supreme Court is a step in that direction.
Vermont's civil union initiative was lauded as a positive and meaningful development, but Wolfson warned against setting the bar too low. Civil unions are not recognized in all states, which can discourage job mobility for Vermont residents and expose out-of-state couples to substantial legal uncertainty when they return home with their civil union license.
Canada was cited as an example to follow, one that provides role-models for other committed gay and lesbian relationships. Laughter broke out when Wolfson noted that the decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal (which directed the province to open marriage to same-sex couples) came down on Judy Garland's birthday.
It may be worth noting however that the same legal limbo applies when a gay couple from Edmonton or Halifax returns home after obtaining a marriage license in Toronto. The good news is that the federal government is in the process of rewriting the national law that defines marriage and it is working with the country's Supreme Court to make sure the wording is in keeping with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and does not discriminate against gay people.
Here in the U.S., more than 1,049 federal benefits are automatically bestowed on married people. Examples such as medical decision-making, immigration, wills, and social security were touched upon. But Wolfson is not a tax attorney, he is a civil-rights specialist. As a matter of fact, the tone and rhythm of his delivery are at times reminiscent of Martin Luther King Jr.'s cyclical speech patterns. Here is how Wolfson described the current struggle for equal marriage rights: 'What brings us in such force tonight is we all know that history is again on the move and that this exclusion, like previous wrongs in American history, is coming to an end. We know it's not always going to be pretty, we know it's not going to happen overnight, we know that some states are going to lean toward equality while others resist to the very end. We know that politicians are going to demagogue as well as manifest profiles in courage. We know that the courts are going to split and we know that the public is grappling. We know that our opponents are on the move, but we know that we too can move and we too can make a change.'
Wolfson made a quick reference to this year's State of the Union Address and finished with an outline for action consisting of what he called 'three concurrent tasks' in the upcoming battle for marriage equality. First, we must secure the Massachusetts marriage licenses. Republican Gov. Mitt Romney and his followers have been seen literally standing in the doorway to prevent same-sex couples from applying for licenses and in so doing they are interfering with what Wolfson describes as the state Constitution's 'clear command for equality.' Secondly, we must repel the Bush administration's efforts to write discrimination into the U.S. constitution as well as oppose anti-gay ballot measures at the state level. Thirdly, and perhaps most important, we need to enlist allies, 'diverse and compelling messengers to tell their stories.'
Wolfson is convinced that right-wing politicians know they are losing the public debate. He says the cause demands 'personal responsibility' and is dependent upon the invaluable help our straight friends and colleagues can provide by speaking up for us, our relationships, and our rights.
For her part Pat Logue, who was part of the team that won the Lawrence case, discussed the three misconceptions about same-sex marriage: people think gay couples can get married (Hawaii is often believed to be the place where this can happen); same-sex couples can protect their rights and ensure equal treatment before the law by simply writing and signing a few legal documents; and finally, gay people make too big a deal about marriage.
Starting with a review of the states where marriage equality is being debated in the courts, Logue noted the various legal procedures employed by opponents of marriage equality. She also advised people to write living wills and file power of attorney documents, but made it clear that such precautions are not iron-clad guarantees in emergencies. She gave examples of cases where these legal arrangements were not respected, leading to gross injustices.
As for the last misconception, Logue had this to say: 'It's really about marrying the person that you love … . I'm a little tired of being told 'you can marry any man you want' … . One irreplaceable person that you have fallen in love with and want to marry … . When we talk about liberty and intimacy and privacy and equality, that's what we're talking about. I should be able to marry my partner and not someone from List A.'
A question period followed in which a number of people recounted personal experiences or looked for guidance in interpreting labor regulations and governmental policies relating to marital status. Both speakers provided enlightening but not definite answers as some of these issues unfortunately remain rather fluid at the moment.
The discussion was co-sponsored by 17 local, regional and national organizations, including Chicago NOW, Equality Illinois, and Human Rights Campaign's MillionForMarriage.org .
