Gay Marriage

Today is the day the MA residents have the ability to get hitched to any one other person of appropriate age. And my, is this a good thing. For them, perhaps; the rest of us are a little behind.

Personally, I find it significant that this day happened on the 50th anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education. Both events address class issues, though that isn't obvious to some people. Indeed, as with the Brown decision, there is a hue and cry that this country is going to pot because of it. Since this is 'only' a State Supreme Court, it doesn't hold near the weight a Federal decision would.

I say this is a class issue because the institution of marraige in our body of laws rather clearly creates classes. Marriage provides a host of benefits that are available either no where else, or only through adoption. Legal recognition of 'next of kin' being a prime example of something that is hard to work around. Qualifying as 'Spouse' with regards to insurance is another very sticky point. Tax benefits for those who would not incur the 'marriage penalty'. All of these things are denied to the class of monogamous couple who share the same sex.

Appropriate legal documents can approximate a lot of the things that a single marriage certificate grants, but they aren't near as durable or all encompasing. Estate law has 'next of kin' written into it, but if you are NOT next of kin legally, the actual next of kin can challenge any written will and thus incur great legal costs. Emergency Room access may be granted through powers of attorney, but establishing that with the ER in question can take a day or two. These are things that need fixing.

The challenge against same-sex marriage is based on a couple of arguments:

• God said you shouldn't do it
• Marriage is for procreation, and gay couples can't do that
• Historically, its never been done

God said you shouldn't do it
God in this case is the Christian God that has dominated American religious thinking since its founding. A friend of mine posted a link a month ago to an article describing the history of same-sex relationships in the Christian church. Unfortunately, I can't find the link. But in essence, as late as the 1700's there were rituals that Solemnized a same-sex union. The early church was much more forgiving of such brotherly and sisterly love. I really wish I had that link. It was good reading. The article in question was written in 1997.

Marriage is for procreation, and gay couples can't do that
Gay couples can adopt, Lesbian couples can carry their own through either IVF or 'naturally' with a friend. Such couples have been rasing kids for a long time, and first hit headlines in the 1980's. Proceation isn't the big benefit of marriage, its the stable home. And a stable home does far more towards giving the children advantages than what sex the parents are. This also keys into the larger debate of whether or not gay/lesbian couples should be able to adopt and raise kids, but that's the topic of another rant.

Historically, its never been done
As with all such assertions, it depends on what books you read. Marriage, in the modern civil sense, really hasn't been around that long. Marriage was a function of the Church and civil authority generally recognized families. That self same church was also permitting same sex unions, recognized in a church and everything, for several centuries. In classic lawyerese... "define marriage."

Marriage is like an insurance policy in some cases. For day to day stuff you don't notice it. But when disaster strikes (death, disability, etc) it can be invaluable. The 'civil union' movement is going the right direction, but until the word Spouse becomes synonomous with Married and Civily United it won't be the same.