Press Release

Humanists Reject States' Arguments Against Gay Marriage

July 6, 2006

For Immediate Release

Contact: Fred Edwords, (202) 238-9088
fedwords@americanhumanist.org - www.americanhumanist.org

(Washington, D.C.) In response to today's New York court ruling declaring that current state laws denying marriage rights to same-sex couples are constitutional in that state, American Humanist Association leaders are speaking out. Fred Edwords, the organization's director of communications, said, "The court correctly states that the idea of same-sex marriage is 'a relatively new one' to our culture. However, not just the idea is new; so are our practices. Current realities have changed." Edwords added, "The court is therefore basing its decision on the outdated, religious interpretations argued by the religious right instead of the present needs of a modern society. The nature of marriage, of our families, and what it means to love have evolved in the last fifty years. Our laws need to reflect our changing society."

The court declared that the current laws are justified given that they are based on the role childrearing plays in marriage, and that the legislature could have a "rational basis" for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples because of their ability to bear children. The court grounded this conclusion on two main arguments: that marriage can act as an "inducement" to heterosexual couples to remain in stable, long-term, and child-bearing relationships, and that it could rationally be concluded that "it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and the father" because children benefit from living with models of both sexes.

But, "Like it or not, today there are approximately 600,000 households headed by same-sex partners with children under 18," said Beth Lamont, a practicing Humanist Celebrant in New York State who officiates gay and lesbian commitment ceremonies. "The court's decision isn't going to make these families vanish. So it's time to recognize that such families exist and are entitled to the same protections granted families headed by heterosexual couples, which include over 1,000 legal benefits, such as health insurance coverage and inheritance rights."

"Even more absurd," Edwords said, "is that New York State has, for over a decade, allowed same-sex couples to adopt children. Therefore it is a contradiction to have one right so well established but then, at this late date, suddenly refuse to grant a related and necessary right."

If the court ties the primary purpose of marriage to children, then, adds Lamont, "There is much more evidence showing that children growing up without the advantages of marriage are generally worse off than there is data to suggest that children growing up in same-sex families fare worse than those of heterosexual families. Based on that knowledge, or lack thereof, we can conclude that it is in the best interest of these children to legalize same-sex marriage."

New York was not the only state to rule against gay marriage today. The Georgia Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling this afternoon that a contested ban on same-sex marriage, which had previously been struck down by lower courts, would be upheld. The ban had been approved by 76 percent of the voters in 2004.

"The Georgia Supreme Court today was only ruling on the technical aspects of the law, not on the constitutionality of the ban. However, it is disheartening that Georgians reject gay marriage and civil unions, as evidenced by high numbers in support of the ban, when no law in their state restricts gay adoptions or foster parenting," said Edwords. "The children of such adoptive and fostering parents would be better off if Georgians urged their legislature to allow such parents to marry. These children would then no longer be in unmarried households. This would be consistent with the family values that Georgians so strongly support."

# # #