The Thinker

Civil marriage is still a civil right

Perhaps to really appreciate Valentine’s Day, you have to be single or divorced. When you are an old married dude like me, Valentine’s Day has a perfunctory feel to it. Of course, I get my wife a card, some chocolate and sometimes even some flowers. She does likewise. It should be a special day since after all it is a day that celebrates romantic love. Perhaps we could find ways to make the day more special. For us the truth is that we love each other the same every day of the year, so there is not much point in making a fuss over Valentine’s Day, beyond what is expected.

Absence does make my heart grow fonder. There are times when I feel if we really wanted to rekindle the old flame, we should spend a month apart. A week apart, which happens a couple times a year when I am off on business travel, definitely makes me miss my wife. I miss her as well as all those comfortable, somewhat nebbish things we do both together and apart, like sit three feet from each other while she inhabits one computer and I another but largely never speak. I imagine to feel so distracted that I craved her most of the time would take about a month. I really don’t know because in nearly a quarter century of marriage, we have not been apart for more than two weeks at a time.

Passionate love is designed to be fleeting. It tends to get more passionate with increased separation, up to a point. If your hormones remained as high as they are during the passionate love phase, you would live happy but die young. This is why many of us crave a lower intensity kind of love that amounts to the comfort and routine of being married. After a while, you take it for granted simply because it is so always available. We have someone to come home to. He or she may not be perfect, but neither are we. This low-key love that most of the time is pleasant rather than passionate seems to be the key for many to low blood pressure, health and long life.

Some of us would like this pleasant kind of love but haven’t found the right person yet. Others of us may have found the right person but cannot get married. The person they love inconveniently has the same sex as they do. Except in a handful of states they are out of luck. Perhaps they can live with their love, but they cannot do anything to make their relationship legal.

I do not know exactly how things would be between my wife and I right now had we decided to live with each other the last quarter century instead of tying the knot. I do know they would be a lot different. Would we have ever had a child? These days there is a lot less stigma associated with having a child out of wedlock but childrearing is so much less complicated when you are married. Our daughter could fall under my insurance. My wife of course would not be my wife, unless you count her as a common law wife, so she would have to fend for herself in the health insurance market. Frankly, I doubt we would still be together. We both wanted to settle down. Inhabiting a house together was nice, but until we were tied together legally, it didn’t feel quite right. Marriage was important because it meant we were an established and committed couple and could plan a future together in a straightforward and structured way.

It baffles me, particularly with the passing of each Valentine’s Day, why gays and lesbians cannot enjoy the simple right to a civil marriage. I could enumerate the many reason why denying civil marriage is so counterproductive to our society. However, the Reverend Evan Keely, an interim minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church I attend pretty much said it all in his succinct sermon Forty-Seven Theses that he delivered appropriately on Valentine’s Day Sunday. In addition, I have talked extensively about this injustice before.

Today, I simply want to say to my gay and lesbian brethren just how sorry I am that they were born into a society where they still cannot know the everyday pleasure of waking up with and interacting with a spouse. I never have to worry that my wife will be denied hospital visitation privileges, or that someone I trust can direct our financial affairs when I am unable to do so. I don’t have to worry about finding someone to accompany me to the hospital for outpatient surgery or to drive me home afterward. It comes implicitly with marriage. Having a spouse makes life so much less complicated in so many ways, while of course it introduces relational complexities as well. It is not fair, but I am fully vested in society and you, unless you live in a state that allows gay marriage, are not. Even if you happen to live in a progressive state like Massachusetts, in the eyes of the federal government you are still not married, and are treated as such.

Rest assured that this will change. In time, this injustice will be rectified and you will be treated as equally as the rest of us who happen to have been born with heterosexual orientations. I will not rest until you too can enjoy the right to live pleasantly (but not always with burning passion) with the blessing of civil society with the person you love.


4 Responses to “Civil marriage is still a civil right”

  1. 8:46 pm on February 20 2010, John Smith said:

    Rest assured that the legal use of the word and term “marriage” will never be the law of the land in the United States.

    We are a nation based on Judeo-Christian principles and morals. As such, while we may accept “civil union” as a compromise, thereby giving gays all of the legal rights and responsibilities of a married couple, we will never allowed the use of the word “marriage” to refer to such a union.

    Every state, every single one, that has put this up for a vote of its citizens has failed to pass gay marriage. Enough states have done so, in fact, that if their legislatures requested it, they are of sufficient numbers to require calling a second Constitutional Convention so as to settle the matter, constitutionally, once and for all.

    Even the most conservative of us are in favor of civil union legal rights and responsibilities for gay unions. However “marriage” is a word that we reserve for the legally defined union as specified under the Federal DOMA act.

  2. 9:30 pm on February 20 2010, Mark said:

    John, in at least five states gay marriage is law. It is likely that more states will join in time as our nation becomes more progressive. My daughter’s generation is completely indifferent to sexual orientation. When they are in charge it will be the law of the land.

    “Civil union” is separate but equal all over again. If nothing else someday the Supreme Court will strike it down, like it did prohibitions against marrying outside your race or, more recently, as it did with sodomy laws. We survived both.

    [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.

  3. 1:28 pm on February 21 2010, John Smtih said:

    Mark, you do not have your facts straight.

    No state where a “gay marriage” bill has gone to the state’s voters has approved it. 32 out of 32 states have seen such referendums go down in flames with California and Maryland, as two of the most liberal states in the country leading the way.

    what you speak of are states where legislatures or judges have passed laws and those same states do not permit voter initiated referendums of legislative or judicial acts.

    “Civil union” is most assuredly not “separate but equal all over again. Our nation, our society, our culture has the right to set the laws and establish the moral suasions by which we want to make our norms. “Marriage” is not ever going to be extended to the unions of gays.

    32 out of 32 states, Mark, remember they have rejected these laws at the ballot box. DOMA (The Federal Defense of Marriage Act) is not about to be repealed, even by this extremely liberal Congress and extremely liberal President.

    Civil unions are as far as the vast majority of Americans are willing to go in extending the rights and responsibilities of a marriage between a man and a woman to the gay community. That provides them all of the legalities they want, and deserve, while protecting the moral fabric of our nation, society and culture.

    It may interest you to know, in addition, Mark, that the gay lobby folks on Capitol Hill are routinely followed, door to door, by the polygamist’s lobbies. Their argument is that if gays are getting what they want, why not polygamists?

    The last session of Congress had the most extensive protection of gay rights ever passed in our nation signed into law by none other than George W. Bush. Barney Frank shepherded the legislation on behalf of the GLBT community. However, at the last minute, Frank had the transgendered community removed from the bill as he thought in doing so, it would give the bill the broadest chances for passage and by the widest margins. What Frank did was an abomination. You can talk about “separate but equal” all you want, Mark, however Frank put 1/4 of his constituency off the bus much less even at the back of it. The equivalent would be a civil rights bill denying rights to the darkest skinned blacks in favor of those with lighter skin tones. Where is your liberal outrage on this?

    I support gay rights and gay responsibilities in full. I draw the line in the sand though when the word marriage is brought up. I represent the overwhelming majority of America on this and we’re not changing our minds. 32 out of 32 states and the DOMA serve as a continuing legal monument to that.

  4. 6:50 pm on February 21 2010, Mark said:

    No state to my knowledge has put gay marriage to referendum and had it passed. However, it is not correct to say that state legislatures have not passed gay marriage legislation. Both the New Hampshire legislature and the Maine legislature passed gay marriage laws that were signed into law. The Maine one was subsequently overturned by referendum last year.

    Judges in other states said that gay marriage was lawful because of the state constitution. Legislatures can amend their constitutions if they choose to, but so far that has not happened.

    Civil unions do not always grant the equivalence of marriage in law. For the most part they grant a subset of the rights entitled to those who are married.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site