So, 4 out of 7 California Supreme Court justices recommend equality for their citizens who choose marriage. Outstanding. The only negative for me in that little item is that 3 out 7 are fearful that the entire planet will implode when two men or two women have their relationship upheld along with opposite gender couples. Here's a snippet of the report from CNN:
"There can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state's general legislative policy and preference," Thursday's ruling read.
Accordingly, the law's language "limiting the designation of marriage to a 'union between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional, and ... the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples," it read.
For the naysayers, if you don't haul out the old, "Adam and Eve/Adam and Steve" and "What about polygamy and marrying your dog" argument, I won't get into the old, "Look at thrice married Rush Limbaugh" or "Britney Spears models the sanctity of marriage" or "Levitcus also says you should stone to death your disrespectful children" arguments. The term "sanctity of marriage" is a simple term used when the person saying it doesn't really want to deal with the complex issues around relationships, partnerships and his or her own fears. "What about the sanctity of marriage?" they say, upon discovering infidelity. "The sanctity of marraige compels you to obey me!" "Oh dear, now that gays can marry, the sanctity of my marraige is shattered." The reality is, in this day and age, marriage is a legal recognition gifted by the government to protect (and take advantage of) two people's relationship. What it means in the heart, what the partnership is at its very core, can never be defined by a piece of paper--whether it's you and your wife who have it or the two men next door.
My partner and I have been married twice--to one another. Once in Portland, Oregon, again in Canada. Did it make our relationship stronger? Did it make us feel like we were more legitimate? Honestly, it did. At the moment, we had this sense of validation if only because we were finally being awarded the same thing that "normal" (as a co-worker once harmlessly called us) couples receive. For about a day or two, we rode the high of having had our relatioship blessed by an official "relationship blesser" and, of course, having our family there. But once the cake was eaten and everyone had gone home, we were left with what we had before: A pretty stable, loving partnership, one in which each of us often takes care of our own needs first and, occasionally, places our partner's needs before ours. Where we misplace our keys, neglect the dusting, argue, make up, hug our children, cook dinner, disagree over how to load the dishwasher and tell one another "I love you" on a daily basis. The marriage certificate we have framed is a nice symbol for what someone once tried to give us and of the beautful event that was our wedding. But in the reality of daily life, it doesn't form the foundation of who and what we are.
So what am I saying? Do I care that California may allow gay marriage now? Do I want Washington state to do the same? Of course. Will it make me love my partner more? No. Will it cause any of my sons to suddenly broaden their search of potential life partners to include males now? Likely not. What it will do is give me the simple things that anyone wants with the person they love. To exist with him or her, enjoying the same rights that his or her straight neighbors have. The recognition of the agreement to be a partnership, no judgements on their worthiness, stability, prettiness or palatbility. Just an equal support of their desire to be with one another and of the dream that they may grow old as a couple.
