Maryland became the eighth state in the US to recognize Marriage Equality. I’m not big on Constitutional Law and correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that once enough states enact a law, doesn’t it have to be ratified into the Constitution? I imagine that would necessitate getting rid of DOMA at the same time and eventually all of this one man-one woman crap in regards to marriage will be history. Imagine one day telling our grandchildren that it used to be illegal for Cher and I to be married.
Up until 1968, the year before I was born, it was illegal for people of different races to be married in seventeen states in this country. Richard and Mildred Loving (née Jetter,) were married in 1958 and had to leave their home state of Virginia because it was illegal for them to be a married bi-racial couple. The judge proclaimed, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” That judge, not unlike many people today, seemed to know what God intended. It would seem that God does a lot of talking to male politicians and lawmakers. Sometimes He whispers things to them about women and whether they should be allowed to have sex or have babies. Sometimes He helps quarterbacks win football games. Sometimes He sends a message to all of the sinners in the world by throwing around weather patterns and flooding entire cities.
More than likely, though. He does not.
The idea that committed same-sex couples should not be able to be married in the same way as committed opposite-sex couples is becoming increasingly ridiculous and difficult to understand. Perhaps it is because I pay attention to this silliness on a regular basis. Perhaps it’s because this ridiculousness affects my family and me in all kinds of ways. Perhaps it’s just because it really is crazy.
I’ve written here time and time again about my relationship with Cher and how “normal” of a couple that we are. I hope that the families who live in our neighborhood and town, who see the two of us together, who see our family together with children and dogs and an SUV, are able to notice that we don’t have some kind of special lifestyle. We run errands, we do home improvement projects, we walk our dogs, pay our bills, grocery shop, cook dinner, do laundry. We pay our taxes. We don’t get the same rights. We are asked if we are sisters. We get inquisitive looks on occasion. There is no assumption of our relationship status. We pay more for my healthcare. We don’t get the tax breaks married couples get. We don’t get one another’s social security if needed.
It makes me happy that Washington and Maryland have recently started recognizing all couples who are in committed married relationships but it’s hard to get too overly excited until every state and the federal government does the same. April 15 is just around the corner and Cher and I get the special fun of filling out two separate federal tax forms plus of an “as if” return. “As if” we were legally married. Isn’t that sweet? The Federal Government won’t recognize our relationship but the state wants a return that shows what our situation would look like “as if” it did. (And by the way, and again for the record, the State of Oregon calculates child support based ONLY on my income and the income of my children’s other parent. There is no, “Equal Rights When Convenient.” My relationship status: married, unmarried, living together, to a man, woman or unicorn is not relevant and neither is my children’s other parent’s relationship status. I pray to the Baby Jesus that this is clear because it’s exhausting trying to educated the ignorant about such matters.)
One day, we’re going to put this whole nasty, “My marriage is more important/valid/meaningful/legal than yours) thing to rest. I don’t think I will look back and laugh for awhile because obviously things have a way of going backwards sometimes. You know, like issues of birth control and abortion rights. Issues that have been figured out and agreed on by most of the world for decades and today, in 2012 in the United States we have politicians like Sanitorum saying that states should be allowed to outlaw birth control. We have states like Virginia (again with Virginia, geez,) who want to force women to have an inter-vaginal ultrasound before having an abortion. Because it will “save lives?” Who’s lives? It’s all completely flabbergasting.
I want to live in a world where my daughter’s birth control choices are between her and her doctor and are covered by her medical insurance just like any other prescription drug (like Viagra and Oxycontin you douchebags.) I want to live in a world that young law students at prestigious universities are not just permitted, but encouraged to speak to Congress about important matters without being subjected to being called a “slut” and a “prostitute.” I want to live in a world where honesty is more honorable than chastity and where men aren’t threatened by women’s sexuality and where women and men stand up for things like fairness and justice. I’m glad Rush is losing sponsors and I’m glad Romney, Newt or Santorium are going to lose miserably this November but it’s not enough. Unacceptable utterances and ideology once spoken are out there and I’m not sure how to un-ring these bells except to ring louder ones.
Women need to speak out. Men need to speak out. Because this is ridiculous.
Unfortunately, a law that is enacted by enough states does not become law in other states. It is not ratified into the constitution.
I suspect that wat you’re thinking of is Justice O’Connor’s “evolving public standards” test in death penalty cases. Evolving public standards made it unconstitutional to put mentally retarded and juveniles to death in murder cases, but it had very little to do with getting anything added to the constitution–it essentially got stuff subtracted from the constitution.
On the other hand, you could be talking about the “full faith and credit” clause in Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution which states, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
The effect of the full faith and credit clause on marriage equality, civil unions, and domestic partnerships is totally unresolved at this point. Suing under the clause is one of the strategies being persued by marriage equality activists, but not often enough for my tastes. Also, [and this is easy for me to say, being a straight woman in a committed relationship] I don’t believe that there is enough coordination amongst the legal action arms of equal rights organizations to identify individuals who may be willing to be test cases in civil law or to willingly engage in acts of civil disobediance resulting in criminal charges to test the legality of a marriage granted in one jurisdiction in a second jurisdiction.
That’s what the Lovings did. They got married in DC and moved across the Anacostia river to Virginia where their marriage was illegal. They faced criminal charges. They were jailed (however briefly). They were bannished from their home and from their state. Their criminal convictions were finally heard by US Supreme Court after years of living in DC, not able to return home. Their convictions were overturned and “anti-miscegenation” laws were declared unconstitutional in Loving vs. Virginia (which is still my favorite name for a Supreme Court case ever).
In order to get a law “ratified into the [US] constitution”, Congress will have to propose and pass out of both houses a constitutional amendment. The proposed amendment will then need to be ratified by a two-thirds super majority of the states. Look at the history of the ERA to see how dificutl that might be.
PS: An act of civil disobediance would be to stop filling out an “as if” tax return and to simply file as you are. Married.
Yep. It might be criminal. You might face consequences, but you are (and you know how I love you, and how easy this is for me to say, again being a straight woman in a committed relationship) compliciant in your own oppression when you abide by the rules that have been forced upon you.
We will never have a gay version of Loving vs. Virginia if there aren’t brave people willing to stand up and demand the rights that are given to others for themselves.
There. Soapbox now safely stowed away.