This is my final speech for speechwriting. It was meant to be spoken by Ted Kennedy at the Brooking Institution.

—————

“How the far right is destroying marriage.”

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you. For years, the Brookings Institution has held the front lines of discussion, deliberation, and debate on issues both foreign and domestic. The Institution has inspired thought, clarified positions, and tempered minds – I am honored to speak with you today.

I’m here, actually, to talk about another institution. This one has been around a little longer than Brookings and – I know this may disappoint you – has been the center of more controversy. I’m speaking, of course, of the institution of marriage. Today I’d like to share with you my thoughts on the far right’s opposition to same-sex marriage and demonstrate how their campaign of fear, ignorance, and intolerance is actually destroying the very institution they mean to protect.

Now I know this is a controversial topic. And no doubt I will say some controversial things. But that’s the beauty of living in America. For here we are free. Free to live, free to think, and free to say controversial things.

You can be assured, however, that no words of condescension, contempt, or disdain will fall from my lips. As I once said to the students of Liberty Baptist College - after receiving an invitation to speak from the Reverend Jerry Falwell – “We must respect the motives of those who exercise their right to disagree. The more our feelings diverge, the more deeply felt they are, the greater is our obligation to grant the sincerity and essential decency to our fellow citizens on the other side.”

I respect those on the far right in our country. You can, after all, respect someone and still think they are wrong.

Now before I begin to explain how it is exactly the far right is destroying marriage in our country I would like to first take you through a few historical claims and concerns made by those on the right. Don’t worry, I’ll provide some commentary as I go along.

Dr. James Dobson, founder of the far right group Focus on the Family, has recently written a book called Marriage Under Fire. In it he has listed numerous arguments made by many on the far right against same-sex marriage. Here are just a few of those arguments:

Dr. Dobson wrote that if same-sex marriages were legalized, “the younger generation [would become] confused about sexual identity and quickly lose its understanding of lifelong commitments, emotional bonding, sexual purity, the role of children in a family, and from a spiritual perspective, the “sanctity” of marriage.”

I couldn’t disagree more. The younger generations have grown up in more open and tolerant times and therefore understand more about identity – both sexual and non - than my and Dr. Dobson’s generation every will. Legalizing same-sex marriage would neither alter nor distort the younger generation’s perception of relationships or commitment. Knowing that all people were equal and all had an equal avenue to express and confirm their love would only strengthen their perceptions.

And I don’t know about you, but Dr. Dobson’s doomsday scenario sounds more to me like the impact of a messy divorce than it does the result of a same-sex marriage.

Actually, divorce is something Dr. Dobson doesn’t even mention when he talks about marriage - until he begins talking about same-sex marriage. Only then does he see it as a threat to the institution. But when Dr. Dobson claims that “more than ten thousand studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers” – what he fails to mention is that happily married homes are quickly becoming a scarce commodity in America - and it has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

The Center for Disease Control conducted a study and found that one in 12 couples divorce within two years of marriage – one in 5 are divorced within five years of marriage - one in three are divorced within ten. That makes the average life span of a marriage in America 8 years. From 1970 to 1996 the divorce rate quadrupled, from 4.3 million to 18.3 million. These numbers show a significant threat to the institution of marriage – a threat Dr. Dobson fails to address.

Dr. Dobson also claimed that children would be affected at school. According to his book, “with the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation [would] be required to teach this perversion as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.” He then asks, “How can a child, fresh out of toddlerhood, comprehend the meaning of adult sexuality?”

The simple answer is: They don’t now – So why would that change? It’s another scare tactic used by the far right to get parents up in arms about same-sex marriage. It is inexcusable. Children are taught about love, marriage, and commitment at home and in church. In school they are taught facts – math, science, and social studies. This structure would not change because of same-sex marriage, and the claim that it could should not be used as a justification against providing equal rights to our citizens.

Another assertion by Dr. Dobson is that our economy would be greatly affected by the legalization of same-sex marriage. Of particular concern to him was the possible collapsing of the health care system and the potential crippling of Social Security.
If I understand Dr. Dobson correctly, he believes it’s all right to limit the freedoms and rights of certain citizens of the United States because of possible or potential economic strain. If I remember correctly this was once a justification for slavery in our country. This reasoning is not just – it is not right – and it should be rejected. Our citizens deserve better.

On a spiritual level, Dr. Dobson claimed that Christians were not fighting against same-sex marriage with the vigor they should be. He explained his unhappiness in seeing the tolerance displayed by these children of god. He wrote how, “this reticence on behalf of Christians [was] deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacrament designed by God that serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong.” He added how, “the younger generation and those yet to come [would] be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany, and other European countries.”

I deeply respect Dr. Dobson’s religious beliefs. I can appreciate his fear for his faith. But Christianity isn’t going anywhere. And no law would ever require a religious institution to marry anyone they deemed unfit to marry. What we are talking about here is civil marriage. While religious marriage is a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His church, civil marriage is a concrete relationship between private citizens and their government. It is a form of protection, a form of security, and conforms to our societal structure.

As I said to those students at Liberty Baptist, “the proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of the individual, not the coercive power of the state.”

If we are to live together, peacefully, within our own borders, we must recognize and respect the separation between church and state and understand the roles each play in our individual and collective lives.

So if Dr. Dobson and others on the far right in our country are so genuinely concerned with saving the institution of marriage, how could they be contributing to its demise, you ask. There are a few reasons for this.

Firstly, every minute and every dollar spent in their campaign against same-sex marriage is another minute and another dollar taken away from causes that could dramatically strengthen marriage and the family in America.

One such cause is education. A study released by Dr. Steven P. Martin, a professor of sociology at The University of Maryland-College Park, showed how the divorce rate in America was directly correlated to education. His study monitored the marriage and divorce rates from 1970 to 1990 and found the rate of divorce among those with a college degree was halved. Those who did not go to college had much higher rates of divorces, especially the women.

If the groups who poured millions of dollars into supporting discriminatory legislation against gays and lesbians during the election of 2004 had spent that money on scholarships and grants and helped get our young people off to higher education they would have done much more for saving marriage.

Secondly, by not allowing gays and lesbians an equal right to marriage, the government has had to find a way to grant them equal rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. This has paved the way to the development of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and the like. Many on the religious right condone this. Their problem isn’t with giving gays and lesbians equal rights, it’s with giving them the same rights – with calling it marriage.

This undermines the institution of marriage in two ways. First, you are setting up a whole different legal arrangment that is similar, if not identical to marriage, and making it available not only to gay couples but to heterosexual couples as well. For those heterosexual couples out there who want to be together but not feel the same level of commitment, well, now they have a Plan B. What could be worse for marriage?

Second, this just isn’t fair for gay and lesbian citizens of this country. Second class is not an option. History has shown us how well separate, but equal has worked - we have promised to never let it happen again.

In his book, Dr. Dobson wrote that if same-sex marriage was legalized, “marriage [would be] reduced to something of a partnership that provide[d] attractive benefits and sexual convenience. Cohabitation and short-term relationships [would be] the inevitable result.” He fails to realize that BECAUSE of their exclusion FROM marriage, this is the current reality for many gays and lesbians. The opportunity of marriage would actually reverse the trend of cohabitation and short-term relationships and lead to more stable and committed relationships. And that would help strengthen, not weaken, the institution of marriage.

Thirdly, as gays and lesbians grow up, just as with any child, they are told and slowly begin to understand what marriage is - what it means. They learn it to be the highest form of commitment two people can enter into.

As they reach adulthood and begin understanding their sexuality, they also learn that because of their sexuality they are not equal, and not allowed to take part in that same form of commitment. Well, they can - if they are willing to turn away from who they are and live a life of lies and deceit. If they choose not to deny themselves, they are punished with a denial of rights.

The mixed message our society sends harms marriage. It breeds contempt amongst millions of people who are told to aspire to a certain level of commitment but then told it is not available to them. And even though Dr. Dobson claims that “most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other,” the stories coming out of San Francisco, New York, and my home state of Massachusetts are proof to the contrary. Dedicated gay and lesbian couples across the country are waiting for their chance to take the next step in their relationships. Denial of that next step weakens the importance of the institution of marriage.

Fourthly, the American Psychological Association, in 1975, declared that being gay was not an illness – there was no cure and there need not be. We know that gays and lesbians have existed in our society since the beginning of recorded history, accepted and rejected depending on the mood of the times. And we know they will continue to be here far after our weddings or our 50th anniversaries or our divorces.

If we continue to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry what will happen to these people? Well, they will continue to have relationships, continue to fall in love, and continue to live together. But, without marriage as the ultimate goal of their relationships they will be forced to find alternatives to filing joint legal documents - making out wills, taking out mortgages, and setting up bank accounts.

By not allowing them to get married they set up protections for themselves through loopholes and piecemeal legal work. Soon heterosexual couples who prefer living together without having the firm commitment of marriage will learn how to manage these same loopholes - to get the maximum benefit from their cohabitation. Only for these heterosexual couples it will be a choice and not a matter of rights.

Will this strengthen marriage? Of course not. In fact it would weaken the institution of marriage further by providing yet another alternative to it.

Fifthly and finally, many on the far right claim that same-sex marriage will lead to legalized polygamy and even legalized pet marriage. But a leap in logic is being made that they are not seeing. We don’t allow fathers and daughters to marry because it would be psychologically damaging for the child and because the offspring of this couple could have potentially severe deformities given their genes are so close. We don’t allow humans and animals to get married because only one party is sentient and can give valid consent to such a union. And we don’t allow one person to be married more than once at the same time because our entire legal framework is designed for a two party marriage contract. Not allowing polygamy does not violate a person’s rights – they can still get married – they just need to do so one person at a time.

But gays and lesbians don’t currently have the right to marry anyone they want to. Allowing them the right to a civil marriage would not send marriage down a slippery slope because giving them those rights does not logically lead down a slippery slope. Marriage would still be protected, but strengthened by allowing more committed people into its institution.

So what would happen if the far right decided to support same-sex marriage? Well, they would be taking a giant step towards supporting and advancing the institution of marriage itself. They would be telling the gay and lesbian community, our nation, and the world that the pinnacle of any human relationship is marriage - and America is committed to it.

The problem is those on the far right are not interested in ‘saving’ marriage as much as ‘preserving’ it. They fail to realize that some traditions are not just traditions – they are also rights. Religious marriage is a tradition in and of itself. It should be granted and denied as the Church sees fit.

Civil marriage, however, is both a tradition and a right. And in our great country rights are guaranteed to all, equally.

Dr. Dobson warns us that if we were to legalize same-sex marriage, other countries would soon follow our lead. Actually, America has fallen behind on this one Dr. Dobson. America has fallen behind in the world as the leader in the fight for equality, the fight for religious independence and tolerance, and the fight for civil rights.

Dr. Dobson and the far right could take huge strides to strengthen the institution of marriage. But it starts by clarifying their concerns for the preservation of religious marriage and ceasing to protest equality in civil marriage. Until then – until they help bring civil marriage to all in our country who deserve it and are constitutionally guaranteed it, they will do nothing more than see to the destruction of the institution of marriage.
Thank you and good night.

###