Heterosexuals need to rally for same-sex marriage.

Byline: GUEST VIEWPOINT By Dan Galpern For The Register-Guard

The battle line over the right of gays and lesbians to marry appears sharply drawn. On one side, same-sex couples demand the right and challenge as unconstitutional the denial of privileges, immunities and formal recognition that the state provides to opposite-sex married couples. On the other side, an articulate group of exclusionists - many of whom claim the authority of the Christian faith - insist that civil marriage must remain the prerogative of heterosexuals only.

What is missing from this equation is an indication that large numbers of heterosexuals find the discrimination morally unacceptable. After all, heterosexuals comprise the vast majority of the population, but polls show the public evenly split on extending the franchise to same-sex couples. Many of us - perhaps most - understand full well that same-sex couples have fundamental interests no different from our own.

Civil marriage confers legal rights and benefits affecting nearly every facet of modern family life, including the right to make critical medical decisions when a spouse is incapacitated; the right to be legally recognized as the parent of one's children; the right to spousal health care, pension and other employment benefits; the ability to jointly file income tax returns; the privilege of keeping spousal communications confidential; and the right to inherit property when a spouse dies without a will.

This array of rights and benefits can add critical stability to families, but state law denies same-sex couples the right to marry. The debate over that denial is the most important domestic civil rights question of our day, and we are all diminished by the current oppression.

Heterosexuals, then, must come out of the closet to declare that the discrimination must not be maintained in our name.

Little will be lost by extending that right. Contrary to the claims of the exclusionists, those hundreds of same-sex couples who queued along Hawthorne Boulevard in Portland to file their marriage certificates with Multnomah County during their recent window of opportunity were not out to destroy the institution of marriage. They just wanted to marry. Fairly perceived, their determination constitutes the strongest statement in support of the institution of marriage since interracial couples successful demanded their right to marry just four decades ago.

In a cautious ruling, Multnomah County Circuit Judge Frank Bearden last month held that Oregon's Bill of Rights prohibits the state from conferring rights only to opposite-sex married couples. He considered two options to remedy the inequity: 1) construing civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two spouses without regard to the sex of either party (the Massachusetts Supreme Court's approach) and 2) remanding the issue to the state Legislature with instructions to ensure that rights and benefits are equally available to same-sex couples (the Vermont Supreme Court's approach).

Judge Bearden chose the second approach. However, it is by no means clear that the Legislature will respond as the court directs; the court might have merely postponed the day when it must make the tougher call to declare marriage available to all.

But the exclusionists lack confidence in the courts. They are hedging their legal strategy by fashioning a ballot initiative for the November election that would fix discrimination in the law of marriage in the state constitution. That move could trump any finding by the state Supreme Court that the constitution requires equality of opportunity to marry.

The exclusionists will argue there is nothing wrong with that, since in a democracy the people should have the final word on matters of public interest. Of course, that position ignores the traditional role of the court as guarantor of the fundamental rights of minorities, but as a matter of political power the exclusionists may be able to get this matter before the electorate.

For that reason, heterosexuals of conscience must not wait to assume our own democratic responsibilities. It is in the court of public opinion that the liberty of our brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, parents, friends and neighbors ultimately will be decided. Standing meekly aside is not a legitimate option.

Dan Galpern is a UO law student and the founder of Heterosexuals for the Right of Gays and Lesbians to Marry, www.hglm.org.