by Pieter Crow
11/12/2007

The State of Wyoming is about to offer a form of domestic partner benefits for the first time. Starting January 1, 2008, the unmarried heterosexual and homosexual partners of covered state employees may enroll in a new insurance plan intended to cover long term health care expenses. Details may be found elsewhere. Here I wish to explore a basic question:

Are domestic partner benefits good public policy?

The answer is no on the grounds of history and human rights. Though they may appear insignificant to some people, domestic partner benefits initiate a change in the definition and cultural role of marriage. Likely next steps will move toward civil unions, which in turn create a trajectory toward same-sex marriage. Thus the case against domestic partner benefits aligns strongly with the case against same-sex marriage.

What, then, is the argument for writing marriage into law as the union of a man and a woman? The strongest case I have seen is found in the statement: “Yes to Man and Woman in Marriage: No to Same-Sex Marriage or Civil Unions”. I refer to it here as the Marriage Affirmation.

Published in April 2005 as a full-page advertisement in the Hartford Courant, the leading newspaper in Connecticut, the statement bore the signatures of 700 clergy from across the state. The ministers affirmed civil rights for all people equally and based their reasoning on the ministry of the Gospel. The portion concerned with civil rights included these points:

1. In the United States, the civil rights which we all enjoy are rooted in "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," in the unalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.
2. The unique source for unalienable rights is the Creator, the God of the Bible.
3. The Creator defines true marriage as one man and one woman in mutual fidelity. The health of society and well-being of children are rooted in this foundation. Thus, the Source for unalienable rights also gives us the true definition of marriage.
4. In human history, no society rooted in the approval of homosexuality has ever produced unalienable rights for the larger social order.

In short, the ministers identified the biblical Creator as the ultimate source of rights as well as the original creator of marriage. Why should that matter? Because moving away from the foundation of marriage also moves away from the foundation of human rights. If rights are no longer recognized as unalienable for everyone, then those holding political power may define rights arbitrarily. That leads to tyranny, and tyranny hurts everyone.

These ideas have been discussed by some of America's leading civil rights activists. The results have been most revealing.

Nadine Strossen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), loves the idea of unalienable rights for everyone. Some years ago she was asked, who is the Creator who gives humanity unalienable rights? To date she has not identified a source different than the God of the Bible.

Jeremy Gunn, head of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, openly states that human rights transcend government. But he has not named their source.

John Corvino, professor of philosophy at Wayne State University, strongly favors same-sex marriage. In an article posted at indegayforum.org (“Same-Sex Marriage: The End of Rights?”) he critiques the Marriage Affirmation. Prof. Corvino believes the concept of unalienable rights originated historically at the time of the Enlightenment. Note, however, that a concept of rights that arose for the first time in the 18th century can never be universal or transcultural. To be intrinsically "unalienable" they must go back to the beginning of the human race and originate from outside of it. Else human beings and their governments define "alienable rights" that may be removed at any time. What deity or philosophy, apart from the biblical Creator, qualifies?

A few years ago while visiting family back east I had opportunity to attend a public forum at Harvard University. So I went to hear the debate, "Is Same-Sex Marriage Good for the Nation?" Arguing "yes" was Arline Isaacson, the leading lesbian political activist in the state. She was constantly being quoted in the Boston newspapers; only a few weeks remained until day one of legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. At a previous forum, she said that most of the opponents she debated manifested palpable hostility towards her. But not at Harvard. Of her opponent that night, John Rankin, she said in the earlier forum: "I do in fact believe you when you say that you love us. I mean that genuinely and I do appreciate it.”

Do you hear what she is saying? One can argue for the full equality of all human beings regardless of religious beliefs or sexual identity, and one can disagree with same-sex marriage -- and still be praised by an activist on the other side. The reason why might be traced to the last line of the Marriage Affirmation:

"We seek to love all neighbors as ourselves, based on loving the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength."

Should the State of Wyoming offer domestic partner benefits? No, since they compromise both marriage and human rights. For those who disagree, I invite them to consider the questions posed in the Marriage Affirmation:

Are civil rights being redefined?
If so, why?
If so, what is the new basis for these rights?
What are the consequences?

The ministers concluded: "If these questions cannot be answered with clarity and historical precedence, we believe a legitimate argument for same-sex marriage or civil unions has not been advanced." (I would add "domestic partnerships" as well.)

Challenging questions and varied perspectives will always remain essential for healthy public policy discussion. May all citizens of Wyoming speak honestly what they think best for our beloved Equality State.