Alumni Home > News & Events > What Matters

In Support of Same-Sex Marriage

By William Ramstrom '90

Protesters outside the State House

Standing in the State House on Beacon Hill in the evening of March 11, 2003, demonstrating in favor of same-sex marriage, I was struck by how intensely the people I've met at MIT have shaped my reactions to being gay. There were unspoken adolescent crushes during my undergraduate years, frustrating in their unrequited futility. While in graduate school, I fell deeply in love with another graduate student; an intoxicating first kiss one evening on Killian Court began the daunting, turbulent process of accepting my homosexuality. Years of training to hone my intellectual skills and to focus on rational thought had left this issue fully unresolved. Only the electric jolt of a powerful attraction, and the luck in finding an emotional compatibility with this kind man, could bring me to comprehend myself more fully.

In those confusing months, the example of one friend who was proudly, defiantly out was a powerful one. His calm and self-assurance were a striking contrast to the turmoil I felt as I struggled to come out. When I finally accepted being gay, I was fortunate enough to find several other gay students in my academic department, as well as friends from other programs, as I established a new social circle. These positive examples helped me work through years of harsh, negative ideas of being gay. I had absorbed the meaning of those taunts as much as every other child, but with the horrifying realization that no matter how I denied it, they were aimed directly at me. Many younger gay people report much less antagonism toward them today, compared to when I grew up and many parts of the country have become open to supporting them. Acknowledging the emotional lives of lesbian and gay people by allowing same-sex couples to marry is the most compelling way society can live up to its claims of equal treatment under the law for all citizens. After all, what right is more basic to the "pursuit of happiness" than that of marrying the person you love?

While singing patriotic songs outside the House Chambers during the third day of the Constitutional Convention, I ran into a fraternity brother from my undergraduate years, several friends I met during graduate school, and a staff member who I also recognized from campus. All of us had come to oppose a series of constitutional amendments proposed to strip marriage rights from same-sex couples. These amendments were in response to the November 18 th ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which gave the legislature 180 days to implement any changes to allow those marriages. The SJC ruling directs the Commonwealth to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on May 17 th of this year, the 50 th anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling which led to school desegregation. Despite this ruling, the legislature went to work to try to prevent those marriages from occurring rather than altering the wording of statutes to smooth the transition, as the court intended.

Most of the amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution that were proposed would ban gay marriage and replace it with some protection in the form of civil unions, similar to those available in Vermont. The clearest argument I have for opposing civil unions is one firmly rooted in my engineering background: that setting up two parallel frameworks to accomplish largely the same goals is tremendously inefficient and error-prone. The most elegant and spare design for assuring these rights is to include them in the existing structure of civil marriage, rather than invent a brand new institution that must be explicitly accounted for in myriad laws. To give couples with civil unions the same rights as married couples, modifications would have to be made to thousands of laws and regulations to alter the original allowances for spouses to be "spouses or partners in a civil union," a process which seems tremendously daunting, and moreover, unnecessary.

A number of MIT alumni were at the State House demonstrating during the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention. Each has his own perspective on why the fight for same-sex marriage demands his time. Some are eager for the concrete protections marriage would give their relationships, others want to ensure that lesbian and gay people are afforded all the same rights as straight people. In addition, I spoke to a female staff member who brought her partner to the State House but due to the potential threat of her partner losing her job if she were out, she preferred not to be identified here.

Mary Bonauto, Lead Counsel for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), with William Ramstrom '90

The main goal for Eric Carreno '99 Course XVI is not an immediate walk down the aisle, but equal rights for lesbians and gays. "I don't plan on getting married in the near future, but as my friends and classmates around me have gotten married, I always felt left out. Now, I can get married, and for the first time in a long while I don't feel different."

Rob Jagnow '01 Course VI has been instrumental in organizing two conferences for the Gay and Lesbian Athletics Foundation that were held on the MIT campus in March 2003 and 2004. As with his push for inclusion of lesbian and gay athletes in the sports world at all levels, Jagnow opposes laws that force gays into "a second-class citizenship." He notes that, "Homosexuals are the one remaining group in the United States against whom overt discrimination is widely considered to be acceptable. Same-sex marriage is a critical step on the road to equality. This is the civil rights struggle of my generation."

Along with MIT alumni who sang and chanted outside the House Chambers, one alumnus has been an influential voice on the inside. Byron Rushing '72 Course XI, a State Representative from Boston, has spoken eloquently and forcefully to defend the rights of lesbian and gay people. An African-American Episcopal minister, he was uniquely qualified to counter the arguments of Boston's Black Ministerial Alliance, who have issued a number of statements opposing same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Rushing responded, "They are telling us that black people, once they've gotten their civil rights, don't have to share." He boldly chastised them, saying "Shame on you."

"The people who wrote this constitution guaranteeing those rights to everybody, they did not know who everybody was going to be," Rushing continued. "When the people wrote the US Constitution, they had no idea that a debate like this would ever happen. But remember, the founders of our constitution had no idea that I would ever be standing here talking to you."

The debate in Massachusetts over gay marriage has been a new chapter in the push for the rights of gay people. Times have changed. The centerpiece of NBC's "Must See TV" is a show about two gay men. Every suburban housewife who finds out I am gay says, "Don't you just love Carson from 'Queer Eye?' He's so funny!" A large degree of acceptance of gay people prevails in this state, and in many areas of the country, far greater than even a decade ago.

The tenor of debate in Massachusetts has undergone a fundamental shift. It reminds me most of how the rhetoric on the rights of African-Americans has changed over the years. Today, some politicians continue to oppose laws and programs that would help African-Americans, yet they phrase their objections as though they fully support equality for citizens of every race. While not full progress, it is a marked improvement over the unalloyed bigotry displayed up through the 1960s. Debate on rights for gay people in Massachusetts has crossed a similar threshold, where opponents can no longer (publicly) demonize gay people. Instead, they argue in terms of religious freedom, or more commonly, remain silent in the debate but vote to remove marriage rights anyway.

Curiously, most of the organized opposition to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts comes from groups outside of the state. Ron Crews, who heads the Massachusetts Family Institute, is a former state legislator from Gwinnett County, Georgia, who came here to fight gay marriage. Most of the protesters chanting "One Man, One Woman" have been bused in from the South. The conservative religious groups that have lobbied most intensely against same-sex marriage are the same ones that have worked in their home states to remove the teaching of evolution, attempting to turn the public schools into Midwestern madrasahs. They are the same groups that waited until 1992 to officially accept that Galileo was correct in his heliocentric view of the motions of planets. While religious groups are entitled to their own views on Biblical interpretation, whether applied to interpersonal relationships or to science, the separation of church and state in this country requires that the law be based on legal reasoning, not religious or Biblical arguments.

I remain optimistic about the future, though the legislature did pass an amendment on March 29 that could strip gay couples of the right to marry in 2006, substituting weaker civil unions protection. Support for my side of the debate is steadily increasing. The number of legislators opposed to the amendment increased with each vote, and in the wider culture, surveys show that young people are firmly supportive of same-sex marriage. While the out-of-state protesters have already returned home, we gay people are still here in Massachusetts , and we are still hard at work defending our rights. Equal marriage rights for same-sex couples highlight the fact that the Constitution grants rights to everyone, including lesbian and gay people. Equal marriage rights are a legacy that today's generation leaves for the frightened gay kids of tomorrow, to assure them that many people believe in their worth. Equal marriage rights show that the heart of the fight for gay rights is not about sex, it is about love. No matter the short-term hurdles, I much prefer to be on the side of love, than on the side that opposes it.

About the Author William Ramstrom '90 William Ramstrom graduated from MIT in 1990 with a SB in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. He returned to the Institute and received a master's in Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences in 2001. He currently lives in Boston's South End, and volunteers with MassEquality. Published April 8, 2004.

What Matters is a guest opinion column written by a different MIT alumnus or alumna each month. The views expressed in What Matters are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Association or of MIT. For previous columns, please see the archives. Would you like to contribute a What Matters column?