To Marry or not to Marry... An interesting question after ‘DD Day’ (Death of DOMA)

First: Happy Gay Pride! This is a most special one that we all will remember.

As of this past Wednesday, June 26, 2013, thirteen states of the United States of America (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington), the District of Columbia and five Native American tribes (The Coquille Indian Tribe, the Suquamish tribe, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, and the Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel) have independently legalized same-sex marriage. World wide: The Netherlands in 2001 was the first country to legalize same-sex marriages, with the first marriages performed in the Amsterdam city hall on 1 April 2001. Since then, same-sex marriages have been performed legally by Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2003 - in some provinces; 2005 - nationally), South Africa (2006), Norway (2009), Sweden (2009), Portugal (2010), Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010), Denmark (2012), Brazil (2013), France (2013), Uruguay (eff. August 1, 2013), and in New Zealand (eff. August 19, 2013).

In the US, the tenth amendment to the Bill of Rights declares that Individual states have the rights to develop their own rules of law when they fall outside of federal legal guidelines and decisions as written in the original US constitution. The act of contracting a marriage is considered a state’s right because it is not in the original federal document.

With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, a marriage was explicitly defined by congress as a union of one man and one woman. This vote fell in opposition to the original signed constitution. DOMA lasted until 2013 with the Supreme Court’s decision that DOMA goes against the original federally declared guide-lines; states do have the right to allow for same-sex/trans-gendered marriage if they so choose. By accepting this the court also stated that the federal government must recognize these state’s marriage contracts from the states where ‘marriage equality’ is legal.

Here too, within equal protection under the law (the Fourteenth Amendment) where marriage affords ‘federal’ benefits and responsibilities, a different state should not be able to restrict this originally designated federal guideline. (If one state has a federally recognized law than all states must too recognize those of other states.) However, this question has not yet been challenged and set fourth before the Court.

“Same-sex marriages can be performed in a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting. Various faith communities around the world support allowing same-sex couples to marry or conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies; for example: Church of Sweden, Quakers, U.S. Episcopalians, the Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ, the United Church of Canada, Buddhism in Australia, Reform and Conservative Jews, Wiccans, Druids, Unitarian Universalists, and Native American religions with a two-spirit tradition, as well as various progressive and modern Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jewish groups and various minor religions and other denominations.” Note: I am an ordained member of the Clergy by the Universal Life Church since 2010.

That is the end of all the legal and social points of this discussion. Now, should you get married in those states and countries where it can be done?

1) You should only marry someone who is a best friend. We already know that more than fifty percent of Gay relationships are agreed and declared as open ones. (cheating, ie: sneaking ‘a little something on the side’ is probably the same in gay and straight relationships.) My rule has always been, “It is not who you go to bed with, it is who you want to wake up with every morning that counts.” If it is only for the reason of easy access to a good fuck that you want to be contracted to a person... perhaps it might be a wiser decision to just cohabit. Wait until you both can see if living together is the same as living a life together. If your taste in sex changes independently from each other, is that going to change your feelings for your spouse? If so, DO NOT DO IT! Consider this fact... Nature is most likely not going to treat the two of you equally.

2) If you both think that you want a child then it is no longer about you. Do Get Married... That is if you both will have the guts to stick it out for the object of your marriage and by doing so grow closer. There are plenty of messed up kids from straight broken households. Don’t add to that statistic as a gay broken household. If you find yourself having to justify this, remember “It is about the child... deal with it or don’t do it.”

3) Additional reasons of inheritance: It is not at all unusual for a daddy and his boy to live a life, unevenly bonded together- to gain spirit from the other, to learn, to serve each other, to take care of the first who naturally departs- then to let go in time and go on. Here the younger carries the love of the loved one who has passed and passes that love and advantages to yet another. This should be a part of the first reason to marry. It is a very special case that is found much, much more often with gay families than with straight families. Like the staggered bricks that make up a wall- it can be very strong and ongoing.

It is really simple: Will the problems you will definitely need to share make you closer and make ‘home’ the place you want to go ‘to rest’ or will it make that the place you need to escape from? Now, multiply that over a lifetime.

We in those places mentioned have the right to get legally married... Let’s use this tool of justice wisely. For those who live in places where this right is not afforded... We’re all working on that.

----------

Information for this was gathered from From Wikipedia and other on-line sources. Also: this is only an opinion. My credentials are only thirteen years with my Ex with whom I am still in close contact, followed by my Spouse of twenty-four years.

Again: Happy Gay Pride 2013


Comments are disabled for this blog post.
  • No, quiltguy, you don’t have to bake your own wedding cake... but then you don’t have to let others do it for you either. (I know of a fine speciality occasion cake maker I met here @ DD if interested.) When My Spouse and I had our 2001 Civil Union in Vermont (OMG, today’s that anniversary) We celebrated the progressive state by having all the food from there... ie: “Ben & Jerry’s anyone.” We had no cake at all... We had an enormous ice cream tasting arranged for by the B&J executive office. Then we voted on the best flavor from the dozens offered.
    MachineToole 07/01/2013 12:34 PM
  • BearinFW... You are right, however this is not a time to grumble and cave in. This is a time to celebrate and march ‘gayly’ forward. The first steps took a long time to achieve. Lets use the inertia to move us onward. There is no perfect. To expect that is to fail before one starts. The last thing we as a group wants is to do is be like the religious right... kick others down while crying that we are victims... I’m no victim and I will only kick others out of my way who are depriving me of my rightful place. Be grateful, be happy, and lets fight together to make federal recognition of the marriage contract universal. The imperfection will be that, like some people, some states will not change for generations. Sometimes one has to move out of a bad situation or one winds up accepting the bad as the normal. I know it is not easy... but how do you think our parents, or grand parents, or great grandparents got to this country? They could have stayed where they came from.
    MachineToole 06/29/2013 12:51 PM
  • I think basic fairness is a simple way to explain it. Let's say the feds adopted the method that the military is talking about. If you lived in New York, you can get married there, move to Austin, and still be married (in terms of federal benefits). But if you live in Austin, visit New York and get married, and go back to Austin, you wouldn't be. That could set up the situation where you have two couples who are best friends and neighbors, both living in Austin, both with a valid New York marriage license, but with one couple eligible for federal benefits and the other not. I don't think this is a situation we need to be in. All same-sex couples with a legally obtained license should be considered married by the feds or bizarrely unfair things like this will happen. We can worry about state recognition later.
    BearinFW 06/29/2013 01:38 AM
  • I would like to add though that it may not be settled how the government, for the purpose of benefits, is going to define who is married. It probably wouldn't hurt to write your congressman (though Congress isn't going to do anything on it) or the White House to let them know that you support including all legally married couples, meaning with a marriage license from a state or country that recognizes same-sex marriage, regardless of residence.
    BearinFW 06/29/2013 01:13 AM
  • Well, the feds are going to be more help than they were before the rulings, but they're not a cure all.

    I read a story today about how the military plans to determine what marriages it recognizes, so a good guess is that that will likely be the government's plan, too.

    In a nutshell, the military will recognize same-sex marriages in which the couples resided in a state where marriage was legal at the time of their marriage. What this means is that if a couple living in one of the 13 states gets married, then moves to one of the 37, their marriage would still be recognized. However, a couple from one of the 37 states won't be recognized if they just go for a quickie marriage where it's legal. They would have to reside there first.

    If this is how it plays out then the DOMA ruling isn't going to directly help couples in the 37 non-marriage states. But I'm sure this would be tested in court.
    BearinFW 06/29/2013 01:00 AM
  • Excellent insights! Whatever we do from here on, at least we have Federal law helping us rather than hindering.

    Like the Bard once wrote:
    "This above all: to thine own self be true,
    And it must follow, as the night the day,
    Thou canst not then be false to any man."
    rjzip 06/28/2013 07:08 PM