This week the Supreme Court will tackle two huge issues, both of which will have far reaching implications for many in this nation. The first is the Defense of Marriage Act (commonly referred to as DOMA) which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. This Act was passed in 1996 by President Clinton, and was the Federal Governments first foray into the marriage issue. Prior to the passage of DOMA, marriage was strictly a states’ rights issue. This meant that states, like Vermont, could pass laws to recognize gay marriage in their state; conversely this also meant that if the voting public had the issue brought before them they could also ban it if they had the votes to do so. The second issue at hand is marriage equality.

Within the Republican Party there has been a growing divide on many issues, but none as stark as the issue of marriage equality. The major split is between the more religious, social conservatives (generally older) who are vociferously against it and the more libertarian, classic liberals (generally younger) who are passionately convinced that government has no place intruding into this most personal of issues.

As a member of Generation X, I am one of the many who simply do not understand why the Government needs to be involved in this issue. I remember watching the news with my best friend and coming to understand that my Government had just said while I could marry, he could not. This made no sense to me in 1996, and in the coming years, as I watched many friends start families and get married, it made even less sense.

One family I had the privilege to watch be created was a friend who fostered a six month old baby boy with her partner. After having the boy with them for six months, the two were so in love with him that they could not imagine life without him. They petitioned the state to adopt him, and his mother agreed. You see, his mother had given him to the state when she realized she could not afford to care for another child. If he had not been adopted by my friend and her partner, goodness only knows what would have happened to this sweet boy. Luckily, the court agreed and he got a family. Now, before you leap to the conclusion that this poor boy is at a disadvantage not having a male role model, nothing could be further from the truth. He has six uncles who are always around him to give him all the male role modeling a boy could ask for. He also has a home that surrounds him with love and offers him a much better life than he would have had floating through the system for God knows how long.

Many similar families are caught in this divide, as are many politicians with sons and daughters who are gay and lesbian. Even Dick Cheney has a stance on this issue. Mr. Cheney and his wife are for gay marriage and have appeared with their daughter, Mary who is a lesbian, in many PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) advertisements supporting marriage equality. Ohio Senator Rob Portman recently “came out” in favor of gay marriage due to his son’s recent admission that he is gay. Senator Portman made a completely logical appeal to the aforementioned social conservatives in the Republican Party that do not approve of marriage equality by pointing out that marriage is the building block of any civilized society. People who marry are more likely to own real property and have families, as homeowners married people pay more taxes since most are double income earners, and they support public schools with their property taxes. It benefits society to have more married people and families because it widens the tax base and lessens the burdens on society.

I would argue that it also behooves Republicans to recognize that we have been the party that has pushed the social envelope in the past on controversial issues. The Emancipation Proclamation is just one example of that. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is another. The fact that our party gave women the right to vote, and more recently gave this country its first Latina governor should not be overlooked when it comes to the issues of DOMA and marriage equality.

I am a Republican because I believe in the ideal of equality for all citizens regardless of their race, creed, religion, sexual persuasion, gender, ethnic background, age or veteran status. I am a Republican because I believe in marriage and family and societal stability. So, it only stands logically that I would be a Republican for marriage equality.

References
http://reason.com/archives/2013/03/19/the-federalist-case-against-the-defense
http://blog.pflag.org/2008/09/freedom-for-her-daughter.html
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/