Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
Why I Fought for the Right to Say 'I Do'
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
The End of American Capitalism? 5 Short Takes on Where the Financial Crisis Might Be Headed
Democracy and Elections:
Democratic Election Protection Strategy's Missing Link: Electronic Vote Counts
Steven Rosenfeld
DrugReporter:
Marijuana Is Real Medicine
Paul Krassner
Election 2008:
What I Learned at the Sarah Palin Rally Before They Threw Me out
Linda Milazzo
Environment:
Corporations Have Big Plans to Profit from Global Warming
Jill Richardson
ForeignPolicy:
Chomsky: "If the U.S. Carries Out Terrorism, It Did Not Happen"
Subrata Ghoshroy
Health and Wellness:
Will the Economic Meltdown Undermine Interest in Health Care Reform?
Niko Karvounis
Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman
Immigration:
Tuition Becomes Battleground in Immigration Fight
Annette Fuentes
Media and Technology:
The Growth of Talking Points Memo: A Case Study in Independent Media
Joshua Micah Marshall
Movie Mix:
The "Battle in Seattle" and Beyond
Stuart Townsend
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Our Next President Will Transform the Supreme Court
Ellen Goodman
Rights and Liberties:
Robert Fisk: For the Muslim World, It Will Make No Difference Who Wins the Election
Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez
Sex and Relationships:
New Poll: Parents Overwhelmingly Support Age-Appropriate Sex Ed
Scott Swenson
War on Iraq:
The End of Iraq's "Awakening"?
Robert Dreyfuss
Water:
New Information Shows How Climate Change Will Affect Water
Editor's Note: To read a different take on the California Supreme Court decision, read Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore's story, Why One Queer Person Is Not Celebrating California's Historic Gay Marriage Decision.
As you all no doubt know unless you've been hiding under the blankets for the last week and a half, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage violates the state Constitution. In a little less than a month, same-sex couples will be able to legally marry in California.
My partner and I are going to be one of those couples.
And I want to talk a little bit about why.
One of the questions that gets raised a lot when the subject of same-sex marriage comes up is, "Why is marriage so important? Why aren't civil unions or domestic partnerships good enough?"
The usual answers are practical ones. And I'll certainly second them. Marriage is recognized around the country and around the world, and all its practical and legal rights and responsibilities get carried with you everywhere you go in a way that is most emphatically not true for civil unions and domestic partnerships. Besides, it's a well-established principle that "separate but equal" is inherently not equal. The very act of saying, "No, you can't have this thing that everyone else can have, but you can have that other thing we created just for you that's almost exactly like it -- isn't that special?" It's the creation of second-class status, pretty much by definition.
But I want to talk about something else today. I don't want to talk about the legal and practical benefits of marriage. I don't want to talk about hospital visitation rights, child custody rights, inheritance rights, tax benefits, all that good stuff. That's all important, but it's also well-covered ground.
I want to talk about something more intangible. I want to talk about why we're getting married apart from all that.
Marriage is an unbelievably old human institution and human ritual. My parents did it. My grandparents did it. My great-grandparents did it, and theirs, and theirs. The word and the concept carry a weight, a gravitas, intense and complex social and emotional associations, from centuries and millennia of people participating in it. And as far as I know (admittedly my anthropology is a bit weak), it's existed in one form or another in almost every human society, in almost every period of human history. There may be exceptions, but I don't offhand know of any. Getting married means being a link in a chain, taking part in a ritual that's central to human history and society.
Yes, much of that history and many of those associations are awful. Sexist, propertarian, oppressive. But the evolution of the institution from its complicated and often terrible history into what it is today is part of what gives it its weight. The history of marriage, and its growth away from ownership and towards equal partnership, is the history of the human race's maturation. Participating in it means participating, not just in the history and the ritual, but in its growth and change.
Civil unions and domestic partnerships just don't have that.
Let's look at the recent Supreme Court ruling in California. Let's look at what it won't change for my partner and me and what it will.
On a day-to-day level, it probably won't change much. We're domestic partners, and California domestic partnership does afford most of the legal rights and responsibilities that marriage offers. Within the state, anyway. As long as we stay in the state, not much changes in any practical sense. And I doubt that much will change between her and me. We had a commitment ceremony two and a half years ago: a joyful, exuberant, larger- than-we'd expected celebration that we spent many months planning. That ceremony and celebration, and everything we went through to make it happen, did change our relationship, profoundly, and very much for the better. I doubt that our legal wedding in June will have anywhere near that same impact on how we feel about each other.
See more stories tagged with: gay rights, gay marriage, california
Read more of Greta Christina at her blog.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »