Married in Mass, but not at a Mass... good enough?
I support the right of a committed couple, regardless of their sexual preference, to obtain a legally binding recognition of their commitment if they so choose. To exclude a gay couple from the rights, privileges, protections and responsibilities of codified union is wrong. It's a clear-cut issue of civil rights, and any effort to restrict, modify or withhold such recognition on the basis of gender preference is wrong. Period.

A civil union would seem to fulfill those requirements, and allow everyone to go home happy, arm in arm in showers of rice if they wish. But I'm told by those with something at stake in this debate that a civil union is not good enough. I've asked the question in a lot of places, and now I finally understand why, so I thought I'd share this insight.

As I saw it, the only legal difference between a civil union and a marriage is that of nomenclature. I've been told that this is "separate but equal" thinking in the tradition of segregationists. And being called a neo-segregationist gets my back up. But the person who suggested I was that, to his credit, also asked me "Do you still have a copy of your old marriage license?" I affirmed I did. "Get it out and read it."

Well, I have. First, I note with some chagrin that it only cost me $20 to have it issued. It cost ungodly thousands to have it revoked. But that's not at issue here.

I was married in Illinois way back when, but I suppose the language is similar among the other states. And it's the fancy script at the top that matters most. To any person legally authorized to solemnize Marriage, greeting. Marriage may be celebrated...

That's right. A marriage license is really a permission slip. It's not a marriage, in and of itself. It has to be executed by an authorized person, whether clerical or judiciary, and returned with that person's signature to the place it was issued before it's legally effective. A civil union couldn't work quite the same way. It might bestow the same rights and privileges, but it would be no more than a legally binding contract.

So now I understand why it's not good enough for those who want to be married without restriction. There is a difference, and not just an ideologic one.

And now I finally see where this is headed. Barring any desperate manipulations of the Commonwealth's constitution, or obstructionist legal action, Massachusetts will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in three months. One of those couples will take their permission slip to, let's say, a Roman Catholic church and request their marriage be solemnized. The priest will, of course, follow his religious dogma and refuse to do so. The couple will then sue the priest and the church.

Will they have a right to do that? As it is now, nobody can "force" clergy to marry just anybody who knocks on the door... they can, and do, refuse to solemnize certain heterosexual marriages already. Neither is a person of civil authority presiding over a courthouse ceremony obligated to certify a marriage, if they choose not to. Suddenly, though, the element of litigation to force religious groups and justices to go against their beliefs looms large, because the refusal will come on the basis of sexual orientation.

Many religious groups are stridently opposed to homosexuality, and it is against their doctrine. I don't agree with them or their doctrine, but that doesn't matter. Their beliefs are constitutionally protected, too, remember? I'm not gay, neither am I terribly religious, but I support the rights of those who are either (or both) with unanimity. I believe a fair number of churches and clergy, and most justices, will perform gay weddings if we allow them here, but not all of them will. I believe some states and nations will respect the comity of a same-sex Massachusetts marriage, but not all of them will.

Will that be good enough? Probably not. Then, I fear, the real constitutional threats begin. 11:57:51 AM    comment []trackback []