Almost 13 years ago, my first wife died. It was sudden and tragic and not something I like to dwell on. Making funeral arrangements, contacting friends and family, and handling finances was almost too much to handle on top of the already difficult task of getting out of bed. Like most 28 year-olds, she had no will. Florida law was in my favor and since she also had no prior spouses or children from other partners, I inherited the whole of her estate. Not only did I get her car title and life insurance payout, I was able to cancel her credit cards, get her student loans forgiven, and claim Social Security death benefits for our daughter. This was all surprisingly easy at a time when I really needed things to be easy.
There were other "benefits" of being married in that situation. I didn't really have the opportunity to make any medical decisions for her but I had the right to. I was able to take bereavement leave from work. Her hospital bills were covered by my medical insurance. I was able to make funeral arrangements. I received full and uncontested custody of our daughter.
We were young and never thought one of us would drop dead before thirty. We never thought it would happen to us. Tragedy was something that happened to other people. When tragedy struck I was legally granted rights based on a license issued by the state of Florida.
Now imagine that it is 1967 and I am black and we recently moved to Virginia. My legally-binding marriage is no longer valid because the majority opinion in that state is that marriage between people of different races is an abomination. This situation is fundamental to the Supreme Court's majority opinion in which the issue to be considered is summarized as follows: is the marriage between two people a fundamental right, and if so is it protected by the Constitution?
Legal marriage between two people is no different than incorporating, forming a limited liability company, establishing a non profit or a trust, adopting a child, or getting divorced. These are legal acts that establish legal statuses of participants subject to state and federal laws. Period. Gay people can incorporate, they can form trusts, they can write wills, they can grant medical powers of attorney. It was feasible for gay people to obtain many of the same legal benefits of heterosexual married couples. But it wouldn't be easy. It would take great expense and effort and there would still be gaps. No shared health insurance. No "married filing jointly" on tax returns. No bereavement leave. Want the full list? Just google "gay partner denied" and see what comes up. The primary issue considered by the court was "portability" of marriage - meaning that marriage is a federally protected status valid in all states regardless of where the marriage is performed. In other words - is a gay marriage legally granted in one state offered the same federal protection as heterosexual marriage?
The fact that these marriage benefits were granted to me had nothing to do with my religious faith or the promises we made to each other in our wedding vows. These were provisions of the law. This law was derived from religious and social norms - not the other way around. We do not have our beliefs on what marriage is or isn't because the law said so. We started forming committed life partnerships between two people and the laws followed. I am the poster child for why those laws exist and I am very thankful that they benefited me. I can't in good conscience agree with denying these rights to any two people - not 3 people, not a person and an animal, not a person and an inanimate object - two people.
The Supreme Court was charged with determining whether states could refuse this legal partnership to people of the same sex. This has nothing to do with your opinion. In the dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia stated that he believed that the states should have resolved this debate and not the Supreme Court and accused the majority of broadly interpreting the Constitution and other case law. I disagree. The Supreme Court's fundamental purpose is to protect minorities (as it did for people of color in Loving v Virginia) from discriminatory laws. There is no significant legal precedent or justification in the dissenting opinions. In fact, Scalia states, "it is not of
special importance to me what the law says about marriage." His dissent has no basis in whether or not gay people should be married, but whether it was the Court's job to grant that right or they should just wait for all states to decide. While they waited, people were suffering.
In response to the Supreme Court's ruling on same sex marriage, many people are uncomfortable. The Supreme Court has absolutely no control over what marriage means to you. It only has the power to rule on the interpretation of laws with guidance of the Constitution. Regardless of what you think, there is no legal justification to deny gay marriage and, as ruled by the court, it is protected.
In the days to come there will be continued debate on whether the "liberty" of people who believe homosexuality is wrong outweighs the rights of people to obtain goods and services in a public marketplace. I think this battle will most likely be settled in the courts of free market and public opinion as it should be. That may sound contradictory, but your right to refuse to sell goods or services is not fundamental. It is controlled almost entirely by market factors. But that is a discussion for another day.
When I think about gay people wanting to get married, I don't think about them having sex any more than I think about any other heterosexual couples having sex - which is not at all. What I think about is seeing someone you love lying dead on a table in a hospital and how painful the following days, weeks, and months can be. The great paradox of being in a committed relationship is that one day, one of you will most likely suffer a great loss. Thanks to the Court's decision, the times of suffering will be a little bit easier for same-sex couples.
