In a few months, my wife Cathy and I will be celebrating our tenth wedding anniversary. As that date approaches, I often think of the vows we took together: "To have & to hold from this day forward / for better or for worse / in sickness and in health / to love and to cherish / as long as we both shall live."

These are the traditional vows that express the core values of the institution of marriage -- indeed, they are the very embodiment of traditional family values. A couple's lifelong commitment to one another is special, and it is certainly appropriate for the Commonwealth of Kentucky to adopt policies that promote this kind of commitment between two people. That is why it is baffling to me why we would want to adopt policies placing unwise and unjustifiable restrictions on the opportunity of marital commitment.

The American Civil Liberties Union opposes all legislation denying legal recognition of same-sex marriages. Marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, and the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who want to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage.

Civil marriage is the way our society defines our most intimate, committed relationships. It is also the device our society uses to identify our partners for virtually every situation in which it is important to identify the person who is closest to us -- for everything from retirement programs to critical medical decisions to the simple right to be together in crisis situations, like hospital emergency rooms. State-sanctioned marriages confer an enormous array of practical rights that greatly affect one's ability to receive benefits, acquire wealth and care for children.

Denying lebians and gay men the right to marry denies them simple, basic dignity and has serious practical and legal consquences. This is discrimination. It is wrong, and we in the ACLU believe it is unconstitutional as well.

For more than sixty years, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the right to marry is a central part of the liberty protected by the Constitution's Due Process clause. The Court has said that "it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage and family relationships."

Because marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, goverment is prohibited from denying it to whole classes of people without compelling justification. This year, we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia, in which the Court struck down the Commonwealth of Virginia's prohibition against interracial marriage.

Because the only conceivable justification for prohibiting interracial marriage was the maintenance of White Supremacy, the Court found that Virginia had violated not only the Lovings' fundamental right to marry but also the Constitution's guarantee of Equal Protection of the laws.

Although the deplorable history of White Supremacy and racism that formed the basis of the Loving decision are unique, the principles of fundamental liberty and equal protection cited by the Court are universal. Just as 30 years ago, the Commonwealth of Virginia could produce no legitimate and compelling reason to deny interracial couples the right to marry, the testimony presented before this committee today demonstrates that the Commonwealth of Kentucky has no legitimate and compelling reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

It is important to emphasize that what we are talking about is civil marriage -- a legal institution. Legal recognition of same-sex marriages would not mean that a particular church or temple must change its views. The religious view of same-sex marriages will remain a matter for individuals and their religious communities to determine.

Finally, we must recognize that the institution of marriage has not been a static one -- it is an institution that continues to evolve over time.

Indeed many traditional notions of marriage that prevailed for centuries are now obsolete. Just as marriage has traditionally been defined as a union between people of different sexes, prior to Loving, it was also traditionally defined as a union between people of the same race. At one time, marriage was also "traditionally" understood to sanction male ownership of women as property. And until relatively recently, rape, assault, and other kinds of domestic violence and abuse were thought of as natural components of marriage that should be tolerated.

As a civil institution, marriage has become more egalitarian over time, with the focus increasingly on consent and commitment. Recognition of same-sex marriages is the next logical step in this progression.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today in opposition to Bill Request 143. My name is Martha Barnette, and I am co-chair of the Fairness Campaign's Civil Marriage Team. I'm a native Kentuckian and a resident of Jefferson County, where I work as a writer for a beauty magazine.

It's been more than eight joyous years now since my partner and I made a solemn pledge to care for each other for the rest of our lives. Like anyone else, I want to make sure that she is legally protected in all the ways that any other spouse would be.

Clearly, the issue is not whether a church should bless our partnership (even though many of them would!) but whether the state should deny us access to a public institution that provides a host of legal rights and responsibilities that help couples take care of each other at some of the most difficult and vulnerable points in any family's life.

Now, some will try to convince you that the resounding ruling in our favor in Hawaii was an isolated case of liberal judicial activism. In reality, however, the march toward civil rights for same-gender couples is a *worldwide* one. Throughout Scandanavia, same-gender couples already have won most of the rights of civil marriage. Similar laws may soon pass in Spain, France, Finland, Belgium, Brazil, and the Netherlands. Just last month in Canada, the government of British Columbia extended all the rights of common-law marriage to its lesbian and gay citizens.

In fact, in our own country, recent polls show that, contrary to widespread misconceptions, the public is hardly united in opposing such unions. The most recent Newsweek poll showed that the percentage of Americans opposed to such marriages has now dropped to just 56 percent, and a national poll of college students in January found that fully 76% of them *support* civil rights for same-gender couples.

That's because fair-minded Americans are beginning to consider this issue carefully, and ask themselves: How in the world would it harm my marriage if the couple down the street can wed? How would it "destroy" the institution of civil marriage if more committed, law-abiding couples are lining up to participate in it?

Further, remember that anti-marriage bills like the one before us today were introduced in 26 states this year -- and in 17 of those 26 states, those bills were *beaten back*. It'll look mighty ugly in the history books if our state's lawmakers rush to pass such divisive and unnecessary legislation.

Today you've heard stories of undue hardships endured by Kentuckians denied access to the civil institution of marriage; many more are in the materials we've provided. Let me add my own.

Ten years ago, I'd planned to spend the rest of my life with a woman from Brazil. But her visa expired -- and because we could not obtain a civil marriage license like other couples -- immigration officials came for her at work, and within days, she was deported. Now, I'd like to ask you to picture your spouse or your sweetheart, and then imagine having to stand by and watch helplessly as your own government tears from you your beloved, and ships that person out of the country forever.

In conclusion, I would respectfully remind you of your responsibility as lawmakers to consider this issue carefully, to fairly consider the facts -- and our families -- to take into account the views of the many people whose religious beliefs differ from your own (we know that you've heard from many of them; you can expect to hear from many more). We and countless other Kentuckians believe that BR 143 is a divisive, unwarranted attack on us and our families, one that scapegoats and stigmatizes law-abiding citizens, and we urge you to oppose it.

Testimony of Joan C. Callahan, Department of Philosophy, University of Kentucky, Joint House and Senate Judiciary Committee Commonwealth of Kentucky. August 19, 1997