GLBT Marriage and Constitutional Amendments

I would ask everyone to consider the comments made by the prosecutor on the NBC show Law and Order. He said, "Of course we should let them marry, why not let them be as miserable as the rest of us." It may be a humorous comment, but one we shouldn’t dismiss lightly. The sanctity of marriage, so beloved by many in the right wing, has been in question for many years in our nation. More than 50% of marriages, those between a man and a woman, end in divorce. Our laws, passed by those who believe that marriage is so important, often result in our elderly staying single and just living together because marriage will hurt them in so many ways. Laws concerning tax issues, pension issues, rights of inheritance, assumption of a partner’s debt, often become negative issues that keep older people from marrying. It is also interesting how many people use the argument that marriage is for those who procreate. Well then it clearly isn’t for women over 50, although like so many other things that are unequal in society, it allows old men with live sperm, like the late Strom Thurmond to marry.

What the Massachusetts court has done is force the electorate in the state to deal with this issue. I believe that the legislature will pass a constitutional amendment, and in 2006 it will be on the ballot as a referendum. It will be up to us, between now and then, to make the case to the people for our rights and ask that the decent people of Massachusetts grant them to us.

But between now and 2006, I wonder how many gay and lesbian couples will actually take advantage of the right to marry. My guess is that very few, percentage wise, actually will. This is not a reason not to be allowed to marry, but if we are honest with each other, what percentage of GLBT relationships last more than 5 years? The other thing to watch is how many who do take advantage of the right to marry in May, will find themselves in divorce court before the amendment fight reaches the public? I see the biggest immediate beneficiaries of this right to marry being gay and lesbian attorneys. I can see the ads now. "Before you marry see us, the law firm of JOHN and JOHN, for your pre-nuptial agreement. Protect yourself from your partner now. You wouldn’t have sex without a condom, don’t marry without a pre-nup." Or, "See the JANE and JANE law firm, we specialize in divorce. Don’t let your partner steal your future income, or lose your home, we will fight for you." Maybe we should ask all the attorneys who will make out like bandits from this right to marry to donate just 10% of their fees to the fight to secure marriage rights. They could write it off as business investment.

But all this aside, we should have, as the prosecutor on Law and Order said, "The right to be as miserable as everyone else." I think we should follow the lead of Congressman Barney Frank in his recent comments on the Today Show and deal with this issue in a rational manner. We should fight a federal constitutional amendment on the basis that this is an issue for the people of each state to determine. We should inform everyone that Massachusetts law will not allow marriage there for those who don’t reside in Massachusetts, and make sure they are not fooled by the Pat Buchanan’s of the world into thinking that marriage in Massachusetts will immediately give us the backing of the full faith and credit law of the constitution. Let us not force our political friends to come out for gay and lesbian marriage now, thereby adding credence to the far right that this should be an election year issue. We do need our friends to oppose a federal constitutional amendment now. We need to convince people of the rightness of giving us civil marriage rights, state by state. We must be clear that we believe and agree with the premise that because of the separation of church and state, we are not talking about the government forcing any religion to recognize or even condone gay marriage.

Let us control the debate, and not fall into the trap being set by the far right, so that even if we win in Massachusetts, we lose in the long run.