Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Same Sex Marriage Affects the Whole Country

By Suzi Steffen, AlterNet. Posted August 22, 2008.


How same-sex marriage in California affects the country -- and the election.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Suzi Steffen

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Patchwork, partying, pessimism, politics: That's the state, so to speak, of same-sex marriage around the U.S. since same-sex couples began lining up to get married in California on the afternoon of June 16.

News of the California Supreme Court's May 15 decision, which said that denying marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples was unconstitutional, surprised some observers because it came from a Republican-appointed court -- and thrilled couples across the country because California does not have residency requirements for marriage.

At the time, Massachusetts, which began offering same-sex couples marriage licenses in 2004, had routinely been denying them to couples from other states thanks to a 1913 law intended to ensure that interracial couples from other states didn't get married in Massachusetts. That law changed at the end of July.

Many marriage equality proponents hailed California's decision as a major step forward, but one of the first reactions for some political wonks was markedly more guarded or even pessimistic.

First, the good news, by the numbers. During the first month that licenses were available to same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally, counties in the Bay Area reported larger numbers of licenses granted and of ceremonies performed in clerk's offices, according to a mid-July Associated Press report.

California does not keep separate count of same-sex marriages, according to the California Department of Public Health, so those curious about the numbers must track county-by-county records or simply look at increases. The AP says that San Francisco, not surprisingly, reported a 131 percent increase in licenses granted, but Sonoma County (a romantic destination in the heart of California's wine country) also reported an increase of 160 percent, from 340 to 546, and a quadrupling of ceremonies performed in the clerk's offices. That number went down in at least one California county, however: Kern County, which includes Bakersfield, stopped performing any civil ceremonies at all, whether between opposite- or same-sex couples, on June 15. But the county clerk's office there must still grant marriage licenses to those who legally qualify.

The economic impact on a budget-constrained state has not been small. According to the AP, the 44 counties in California took in over a quarter of a million dollars more this June than last June. The UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute released a study in early June, before same-sex marriages began in California, estimating that if the state's voters didn't approve a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on the ballot in November, the ceremonies would "boost California's economy by over $683.6 million in direct spending over the next three years."

Massachusetts hasn't ignored those findings. A study commissioned by the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development estimated that repealing the 1913 law, which said that the state would not marry those whose marriages would be illegal in other states, could bring in at least $111 million into the state economy over the next three years. The Massachusetts Senate voted for repeal on July 15, and the House added its vote two weeks later. Bay State Governor Deval Patrick added his signature July 31. The bill repealing the old law contained an emergency preamble allowing out-of-state same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses immediately, and reports in the New York Times indicate that New York couples took advantage of the repeal as soon as it was signed. When a reporter asked Patrick about couples coming to Massachusetts to get married from other states that expressly forbid same-sex marriages, Patrick said, "What we can do is tend our own garden and make sure that it's weeded, and I think we've weeded out a discriminatory law."

But the state of the union isn't all wine and roses, cakes decorated with two brides or grandmothers finally able to give their grandsons the heirloom china.

For one thing, in many states, same-sex couples won't see any legal benefits from getting married in California or Massachusetts. Indeed, Lambda Legal reported earlier this summer that same-sex couples from Wisconsin may face harsh legal penalties if they get hitched on one of the coasts. According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the penalty for a marriage "that's prohibited or declared void in Wisconsin" can range up to a $10,000 fine and up to a nine-month prison sentence -- though Wisconsin prosecutors seem uninterested in using what one called "scarce resources" to prosecute same-sex couples. Still, the Wisconsin law (apparently passed in order to discourage underage heterosexual couples from marrying in other states) indicates one of the many concerns progressive voters felt when the California law passed.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election, california, florida, same-sex marriage, arizona

Suzi Steffen is a freelance writer in Eugene, Oregon and an arts editor at the Eugene (Ore.) Weekly.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
From living with the same lady 50 years...
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 23, 2008 2:18 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have one thing to say to gay couples who want to get married. "Boy, do you'll have a lot to learn!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» lighten up nen! Posted by: donl51
This article is missing a big point
Posted by: hagwind on Aug 23, 2008 4:24 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No matter what your views on the issue, court-dictated same-sex marriage is one portion of the population stuffing its views down the craw of another portion of the population. This is pretty much what happened with Roe v. Wade and we're still living with the aftermath of that one 35+ years later.

No one likes having other people's views stuffed down their craw, including us. The sooner we can wrap our minds around that, the better. Court-mediated victories are a very mixed blessing, and we're a long way from seeing what's actually been "won" in this case.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No, You are Missing the Point Posted by: thornwolf
» RE: No, You are Missing the Point Posted by: efrainstacy
» RE: No, You are Missing the Point Posted by: efrainstacy
» You're both missing my point Posted by: hagwind
» RE: You're both missing my point Posted by: efrainstacy
» You're still missing the point Posted by: thornwolf
» RE: You're both missing my point Posted by: Friend Of Jonathan
» Sorry Posted by: emmas
» RE: This article is missing a big point Posted by: Friend Of Jonathan
» Dag! Posted by: EinMD
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: Sad Posted by: sirios
» RE: Sad...yea real sad!! Posted by: donl51
» RE: Sad Posted by: Friend Of Jonathan
» RE: Sad Posted by: newsound
» RE: Sad Posted by: deeannef
» RE: Sad Posted by: JP-1
Now you know what it's like HughScott....
Posted by: Allstar Cookie on Aug 23, 2008 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....to be labeled something that your not!

I'm called a racist.....homophobic.....just because I'm a Republican.

I'm neither.


Allstar Cookie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Same sex marriage would be one of the most humane methods of population control I suppose.
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 23, 2008 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People need to have the freedom to decide who they want to be with in life and no economic or cultural barriers should be forced on them. If more people want to not get married, get married but not have children, or marry of the same sex, I say let them do it. Will it control the rate of growth of population? Probably but it won't be as inhumane as the method being used in China these days. We the sheeple had better wake up and work towards making the phrase "Land of the Free" a reality instead of letting it continue to languish as a myth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course it does! It's the "New Abortion"...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Aug 23, 2008 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...now that our economic policies have largely nullified the illegal allien wedge issue.

Lifestyle choices--which, as long as they don't hurt anyone, should be none of the government's business--will always be an issue in times of genuine national crisis. They make such handy distractors from boring things like wars, economic policy (snore...), and the subversion of our Constitutional rights.

Personally, I think officially not giving two hoots in hell about who you choose to get hitched to is the best policy, but you can't deny effectiveness of putting two screaming sides on a "moral issue" against each other, sitting back, and letting huge swaths of the country watch the Clashing Fringies and eat popcorn while Rome burns around them.

So sit back, and pay attention to the important issue of the day: whether two dudes or two chicks should enjoy State sanctioned union under our Constitutional Republic, or whether a the People enjoy the right to decide such matters of State policy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» dictionaries in short supply? Posted by: ABetterFuture
» false. Posted by: ABetterFuture
More important side to this issue
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Aug 23, 2008 12:10 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know a wonderful female couple that have been together for 40 years. They exchanged vows long ago, not for public acceptance but as a pledge of their devotion and love for each other. One is in failing health an d will surely die before her mate but the latter is denied any rights that have accrued over 40 years and will be entitled to no considerations at death. Why? Their union is every bit as much of a civil contract as any that can be made otherwise, but for the prohibition decreed on religious grounds that defy the 1st Amendment guarantee that no such "law" can be established. We live a mockery in this penal colony and praying over it while spewing hatred and denial won't redeem it. Hetero marriages are a travesty by any assessment with divorce rates, spousal battery, child abuse, abandonment and support prosecutions in numbers that are mind-numbing. How two women can threaten such "holy" state of matrimony is vacuous, particularly when both of my friends were battered by their respective male counterparts and through the process of healing found each other and a preferable alternative. I say God looks on them with love and favor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm not that threatened by same sex marriages.
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Aug 23, 2008 1:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quite frankly I'm sick of the whole banter!!1 I sometimes wonder if all the folks doing the most bitching are folks that have bad marriages or are just jealous that someone is getting something they are'nt. This whole debate is sort of childish.
We all know this World can be a crock of shit to live in. That all any of us want is to have someone that we can get through this crap with and feel like we have support when we need it. Should it really matter if they're the
same sex? Not really.
The biggest resistance to same sex marriage is the Old Testiment types 'Go forth and prosper' bunch. Same sex marriages usually don't have kids. Maybe that's a good thing considering how this World seems to run.
If you have someone to take the ups and downs of living in America,cool! If they are the same sex as you,who gives a damn!! You have eachother,you're happy,forget what the masses say, at one time they thought Hitler was
a good joe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Certain domestic issues are political canards
Posted by: Andrew_S on Aug 23, 2008 11:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The issue of homosexuality and the law is far beyond the simple should we or shouldn't we. It is a devisive political policy to give the natives something more fundamental and tangible to consider in their great individualistic debate to worry over. The reality is our congress and media use fundamental domestic issues in a timely and well engineered fashion. The outcome is irrelevant, the executive purpose was achieved long ago. Dividing a nation is the trojan, guess what happened in real law while the sheoples attention was focused on whether their neighbors and/or their sons or daughters sexual marriage intentions were in question.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How can same-sex marriage ever have become an issue?
Posted by: artie on Aug 24, 2008 5:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is a question that I always ask myself. For example, the rearing of my children was such that the issue of a person's skin-color is precluded from ever arising to the level of "an issue"; the vehicles of my children's thinking do not include the concept of race or any of its derivatives. These 'folk myths' are accorded no value in our family: like phlogiston and the ether, they are pieces of our "pre-modern thinking." Similarly, that marriage is a "bond" that two people in love wish to create between themselves is also how we understand marriage - sometimes the bond cannot survive, sometimes it requires tremendous sacrifice, sometimes it causes outrage and profound suffering (as my single fatherhood is explained). In any case, the creation of the bond does NOT entail any requirements on genitalia. I can NOT understand anyone even thinking that it could!!! Thus, again, I always ask myself the question that entitles this comment. For partners' genitalia even to ever have become an issue for America, demonstrates it is a society still embedded in a "pre-modern" and, needless to say, an immeasurably shallow understanding of the bond of marriage itself...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gaping turd tunnel
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Aug 24, 2008 9:50 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This issue is a red herring... please no more of this drivel Alternet....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gaping turd tunnel Posted by: EinMD
Marriage ≠ Holy Matrimony
Posted by: NoPCZone on Aug 24, 2008 11:19 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marriage is nothing more than a legal construct of the state and if same sex couples choose to marry they should be able.

Holy Matrimony is an ordinance of the church and has no legal standing. When a minister marries a couple the phrase 'by the power invested in me by the state/commonwealth of (blank), I pronounce you husband and wife' is the important part. The authority is not of the church- it is of the state.

The theocrats need not get their theological panties in a wad- gay marriage in no way grants any religious sanction to the union unless the denomination or church body chooses to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real point.....
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Aug 25, 2008 8:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Through all of this, the real point is that if people treated people fairly there would be no need for the court to intervene, but it has. If you have a problem with same sex marriage, then I would suggest that you don't marry someone of the same sex!

As a country we really have more pressing issues at our door, than who marries whom. Frankly, as long as people find love in their lives, does it really matter with their sex? And is it really any of my or your business? And for those religious right folk 2 questions: (1)Did God come and personally tell you that you needed to mind their business. (2) What about those other parts of the bible that you violate, do you not think that's an abomination against that bible you thump on?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Massachusetts and California do not have Marriage Equality!
Posted by: lelandt on Aug 26, 2008 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marriage Equality is having ALL of the rights of marriage, including the 1138 federal marriage rights, not a legal category labeled "marriage" which is devoid of those rights. Barak Obama supports granting “civil unions and other legally-recognized unions" (including domestic partnerships and marriage) the 1138 federal rights of marriage. Presently, that includes 10 states! That would be Marriage Equality! Who cares what it is called? The vast majority of the LGBT community is more interested in their rights than the title.

The backlash to our marriage-only strategy has brought us an entirely new body of anti-gay laws: the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and 45 states passing laws or constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. 17 of those laws/constitutional amendments went further by also prohibiting civil unions and domestic partnerships. However, domestic partnerships and civil unions have never been successfully reversed on a direct challenge. The difference between California's same-sex marriage and California's comprehensive domestic partnerships is moot. When will our community start putting reality before rhetoric? True Marriage Equality can only be won in the US Congress, signed by the President. That is where we should be focusing our energies.

www.EqualityWithoutMarriage.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]