KENT MORENO

Burlington

This has been a deceptively difficult column for me to write.  How should I discuss the issue?  Do I talk about the fact that marriage evolved as a means of preventing tribal feuds and wars and to establish paternity? Do I talk about the fact that marriage until recently was a business/political negotiation with the woman as property?  Do I talk about the ever increasing evidence that homosexuality is biologically based? Do I talk about the Bible and its historical contexts?  I know of no Christian who is in favor of slavery or thinks of eating shellfish as “an abomination” yet these are parts of the Bible.  And how do I do this in the space provided to me?
With regard to gay rights and marriage, I see this as the predominant civil rights issue of the present time.  The dynamics are different from the civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 60’s but our society is beginning to profoundly change how it views gays and lesbians.  
When I was in high school 30 years ago in New Jersey, it was  inconceivable that someone might have been openly gay in school.  Yet today in West Virginia, there are kids in high school who are gay and openly dating.  In the same way that Southern whites opposed to desegregation couldn’t stop the civil rights movement for African-Americans, I believe that in spite of the resistance by some, increased recognition and rights for gays and lesbians will only continue.
A bit over 21 years ago, the first of the three most wonderful  experiences of my life occurred.  I married my wife Mollie.  We were passionately in love when we married and over the years that love has only grown.  The other two most wonderful experiences in my life are my children, Megan and Ben.  My family has touched and enriched my life in ways I can’t begin to describe.  I am truly blessed and grateful beyond words to have them.
To say I take marriage and family seriously is an understatement. 
There is nothing I take more seriously.
When I look at all the reasons for my support of gay marriage, if I had to pare it down to one reason, it would be “fairness.”  I can’t imagine how terrible it would be if for some reason the situation was reversed and it was Mollie and I who were prohibited by law from being married.
As a compromise, it has been suggested that gay and lesbian couples be offered civil unions.  With civil unions, their relationship becomes legally recognized and they would get the legal benefits that come with marriage but, it’s a bit like being offered the consolation prize.  If you’re in love and want to spend the rest of your life with someone, you want to be married.  I certainly can’t imagine any heterosexual couple who are in love and wanting to make a lifelong commitment to one another, opt ing for a civil union over
 marriage.
I have a personal reason for supporting gay marriage.  One of the most amazing people I’ve ever known and one of my dearest friends is a lesbian.  “Alice” has worked in the human services field for over 20 years and has enriched the lives of countless individuals and families.  I have seen first hand that many of the families with whom she has worked, see Alice as a blessing in their lives.  Alice realized she was a lesbian in her mid 20’s. By that time, Alice already had a son, “Mike.” 
 Although Mike's father lives close by, Alice has basically been a single parent.  So that Mike never went  without and was able to attend college, Alice, regularly worked two and occasionally three jobs.  Alice has been in a long-term  relationship with a wonderful woman.  You only need to see them  together to see the love they share and to know they belong together.  
Alice is a person of the highest quality.   She is moral, a good  mother, a good friend and she has spent most of her adult life helping  other people. 
 Alice has been in a long-term relationship with a wonderful woman.  You only need to see them together to see the love they share  and to know they belong together. Yet, by law she is prohibited to marry the person she  loves.  Alice, by law, is prohibited to find the same joy,  satisfaction and legal recognition of her relationship that I have  with Mollie.  I can’t help but see an injustice.
 I think marriage must be opened to include both heterosexual and homosexual couples who wish to make a lifelong commitment to one another.  Heterosexual or homosexual, I’d like to think the couple is marrying for love but that’s my bias.

STEPHEN SMOOT

Keyser

 I can probably see where my esteemed colleague will be headed on this topic.  If I guess correctly, we will probably agree that gays need the same kind of binding legal contract to cement their relationship as heterosexuals.  Also we shall agree that each American has the right to define marriage as they see fit.  We will be in agreement with Vice President Cheney who has a gay daughter much more so than with Obama who recently declared his personal opposition to them.   Remarkably, this is one of the few issues where liberals (the Latin root of this word is the same as the one for "liberty") usually argue for more freedom and less government interference.  The resolution of the gay marriage issue is found in American ideals dating back to our country's birth that conservatives hold most dear The Declaration of Independence serves as a fundamental statement of American principles more than any other document.  Embedded in this work is the statement that people have "inalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  Jefferson's famous quote originated from the works of English political philosopher John Locke and the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights.  Both listed rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of property.  The right to pursue property lay at the base of the Declaration's altered expression.  
However, Jefferson (as well as his editors Benjamin Franklin and John Adams) emphasized the natural right to choose a style of living so long as it did not harm others.  This must extend to include the rights of gays to marry if we are to remain true to our fundamental principles as Americans.
Freedom to choose and fear of the always menacing tentacles of government form the heart of the modern conservative movement. How can we remain true to either one of these basic beliefs if we support measures  such as a federal ban on gay marriage?  Furthermore, how can a free country enforce such a ban?  Do you lock up ministers and couples for reciting their vows?  On the other hand, one social conservative argument makes sense as well.  Some ministers fear that in the future, equal protection laws could punish them for refusing to perform marriages when they have a moral objection.  Those that disagree on religious grounds also have the right to choose their beliefs without being afraid of punishment.  The day must not come where a preacher or priest must choose between his morality and the law. 
  Pragmatism in addition to principle demands a legally recognized union of gay couples be recognized.  These people need to have their status legally clarified.  The private sector, especially insurance firms, has moved ahead of the law in recognizing gay unions.
   That being said, the current legal situation is too loose to offer protections.  No contract exists to protect property rights, domestic violence laws are often enforced inconsistently and the tax laws are unfairly stacked against gay
families.  Any couple that is not joined by a binding legal contract is in a vague situation under the law.  In a relationship people are at times more vulnerable than others financially, physically, etc.  A legal bond ensures that the rights of each person are protected by the courts.
A balance must be struck and conservatism offers the answer, not the obstacle.  The government that governs best governs least, so passing an additional law to ban gay marriage is not practical and not conservative.  According to principles laid down by Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, and others, when in doubt, trust in less government.  In this case, consider removing government from the institution of marriage.  Marriage is a religious sacrament, a traditional ritual, and a social custom.  Let each person or group define marriage as it suits them.  The legal contract will not be a marriage, but a civil union conducted by the magistrate. Objections will come from those who will argue that this also protects polygamy.  Of course it will, and why not?  If a legal couple only consists of two people, why should it be illegal that additional free adults also want to consider themselves married?  If everyone is of consenting age, they follow the law, and they are not scamming the IRS or the welfare system, what right do the rest of us have to impose our definition of family upon them?
Conservatism, especially the West Virginia brand, emphasizes maximum freedom for the individual.  We can feel right at home arguing that the government should not steal any more money in taxes than is necessary for it to operate.  We also stand on solid ground arguing for property and gun rights.
We get off track when we ask the government to step in and regulate personal decisions.  Keep government out of marriage and establish legal civil unions for all.