The Privatization of Marriage

This New York Times article said pretty much all the things I have been saying since I first became aware of the gay marriage "issue" (whenever it was Hawaii sparked it those many years ago). In case however you haven't read the article, let me summarize:

* Way back when (1215 and before) Christianity defined the validity of marriage as NOT ONLY those people who had married in the church, but also those who said they had exchanged vows (even if it had been on a hay stack). Those marriages not performed in a church (aka illicit marriages) were still accepted and those people were granted THE SAME rights, privileges, and responsibilities as those who married in the church.

* "Not until the [16TH CENTURY] did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match (NY Times)." Poor Romeo and Juliet...

* "The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was [SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE] of a valid marriage (NY Times)." Back then, living together before marriage didn't have the same (possible) negative repercussions as they do now.

* "In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners (NY Times)."

The question then becomes, what was the purpose of having one's marriage validated by the STATE?

* Distribution of survivor benefits
* Provision of health insurance and pension benefits
* Inheritance and medical information sharing

The article goes more into how these (and other) reasons for validating ones marriage with the state was reasonable in say the 1950s (when divorce, single mothers, and teen parents were rare), but what I want to focus on is the three "rights" I listed above. Rights granted only to those whose marriage is recognized by the state. I know this is probably a topic beaten to death. The arguments are probably used to death. And you are probably sick to death of hearing and reading about the Gay Marriage "Issue." If you are, tough. It's my blog. If you don't want to read it, don't. No skin off my nose.

But for those of you who continue...yay :-).

I was listening to NPR a few months ago (when it was still warm), and they did a segment on this woman (a mechanic) who had been involved with another woman (police officer for over 20 years) for over 15 years. NOTE: Because I don't recall their names, I shall have to refer to them by their professions. The unfortunate thing about their marriage (if they, if anyone, can stand someone else that long, their relationship deserves to be called a marriage) is that it was cut short. The police woman died of throat cancer. Her partner stayed with her, cared for her, worked all day, stayed up all night, fed her, bathed her, took her to hospital appointments, and when it was time, was with her when she died. They had built a house together, but it was the officers money that really made that home, and all creature comforts possible. I'm not saying she was a "sugar-momma," hell no. But her job paid better than her partners. What was so upsetting about this was that, because their relationship was not VALIDATED or RECOGNIZED by the state, her pension could not be passed on to her partner. Up to her dying day she fought the state where they lived, participated in county meetings, petitioned her elected officials, and even allowed a documentary to be made of their trials - both legal and medical.

Honestly, I don't recall the outcome. I think it was positive. But what of those who situations don't turn out as well or remotely close? The mechanic wouldn't have been able to keep the house she and her partner built on her income. Mortgages, loans, bills, etc. are things couples take care of AS A COUPLE. To suddenly find yourself saddled with creditors alone and strapped for cash... "A woman married to a man for just nine months gets Social Security survivor’s benefits when he dies. But a woman living for 19 years with a man to whom she isn’t married is left without government support, even if her presence helped him hold down a full-time job and pay Social Security taxes. A newly married wife or husband can take leave from work to care for a spouse, or sue for a partner’s wrongful death. But unmarried couples typically cannot, no matter how long they have pooled their resources and how faithfully they have kept their commitments (NY Times)."

I'm sure those of you who have taken a detailed look at my profile maybe wondering, what is a self-professed devout Orthodox Christian who calls herself a LUPO doing supporting gay marriage? My answer is this: although I do not want this for myself (okay, I'm lying, I do. But I also have this unholy fear of damnation. That kind of out weights my fear of dying alone and lonely), that doesn't mean I can't look beyond myself and my faith to see what is fair and just for others. And just to be clear on something: no, my faith does not sanction non-heterosexual marriages. They do not persecute the individual (I should know), but instead take a very compassionate view/stance/and action. I know, only my word on this matter. What I am getting at is basic fairness. If one group is allowed a privilege and must take the responsibilities for that privilege, all should be able to have that privilege and take on the responsibilities that comes with it. When group A is granted things group B isn't, it isn't only group B that suffers, but those attached to group B - the children, families, friends, etc.

Okay. Enough ranting for now. It's taken most of my time at work to write this. I should do something for work now... :-)