Massed Up

Associated Press national writer David Crary looks back, five years after a court imposed marriage neutering on Massachusetts. Writers typically start these articles off by focusing on some affectionate same-sex couple happy to have each other. It is hard to find an equivalent on the other side to use as a counterpoint. It is like counterfeiting. Everyone is happy to have more money or some expensive designer merchandise or jewelry – until someone else points it out as counterfeit. But how has anyone else been harmed if, say, a diploma has been counterfeited, or bestowed by a court against the will of those who set the diploma requirements, counter to those requirements? The answer is that counterfeits devalue the authentic.

This article portrays such a happy couple, and goes on to cite how the marriage license was helpful during a hospitalization. Of course, there are other ways hospitals could make accommodations for a same-sex relationship. Neutering marriage isn't necessary.

But until May 17, 2004, when Chalmers and Richard Linnell were among a surge of same-sex couples marrying in Massachusetts, it was legally unavailable to American gays and lesbians.

As we have pointed out many times before, this is not true. "Gays and lesbians" had the same access as anyone else, and under neutered marriage licensing, everyone still has the same access as everyone else. It's equal access either way.

[The rest is below the fold if you care to read it.]

But Massachusetts was the first, providing a five-year record with which to gauge the consequences.

At the time of those first weddings, the debate was red-hot — protests were frequent, expectations ran high that legislators would allow a referendum on whether to overturn the court ruling ordering same-sex marriage. Now, although Roman Catholic leaders and some conservative activists remain vocally opposed, there is overwhelming political support for same-sex marriage and no prospect for a referendum.

People can only do so much once a court has forced marriage neutering on them. The fact is, more of those most passionate about preserving marriage have kids, because unlike a brideless or groomless licensed "marriage", they have kids as a natural result of their coupling. They are busy raising their kids, including trying to keep the homofascists, armed with the state's official position of neutered marriage, from indoctrinating their children.

Heidi and Gina bridle at the contention of some [marriage neutering] opponents that children such as theirs will suffer from not being raised by both a mother and father.

"We have really great kids," says Gina.

Well, gee, that settles it. Fathers must be completely unnecessary. Except maybe to pay taxes to support programs that are in higher demand when children are raised without fathers.

Partly as a backlash to Massachusetts, 26 states have passed constitutional amendments since May 2004 explicitly limiting marriage to male/female unions.

I maintain that those amendments should not have been necessary. It should have required amendments to neuter marriage licensing in the first place, with it being such a fundamental shift in the order of society.

President Barack Obama has pledged to work to repeal the act, but it hasn't been among his priorities since taking office.

"I'm so dying to meet him and have him sit down with my family," Heidi said of Obama. "He could be a leader about this."

Face-to-face meetings with anyone may prompt the other person to be more sympathetic to their pet causes, but they don't change the facts. Obama's pledge to repeal DOMA is in conflict with his statement that marriage unites the sexes, and I suspect his true position falls with marriage neutering, against the will of the people. If written reports are right, he wasn't big on marriage to begin with, and his now-wife had to convince him to marry. Anyway, there are so many pressing issues in the world, and I think the marriage neutering advocates already get way too much attention. Let's not add a private meeting with the President to that.

For now, federal non-recognition can be stinging. After Michael and Rick McManus of Charlton married in 2006, they honeymooned in Panama, and on return to the United States were told at the immigration booth that they had to go through separately because U.S. law didn't consider them married.

Oh, the horror!

Michael and Rick have subsequently adopted a son, turning 2 on May 7, and a daughter, almost 1. They plan to limit international travel until the federal policy changes.

"I don't want our kids to be coming through customs and having to explain that their dads aren't married there," Michael said.

But you don't mind having to explain to them why they have been deprived of a mother?

And they were dismayed when Arkansas voters last fall approved a ballot measure that bans gay couples from adopting.

"We're constantly reminding our friends that we still live in a world where people in another state voted that Rick and I aren't fit to parent," Michael said. "There's a sense of security for our family here — but when we leave this state, it's a very different world."

So don’t move there. It's another state. It isn't your business. I do think that, in some cases, same-sex couple should be able to adopt, but I think a bride+groom should have preference.

"Holy cow, the sky hasn't fallen."

That assessment of five years of same-sex marriage came from Jennifer Chrisler, who advocates for gay and lesbian parents as head of the Boston-based Family Equality Council.

Just like the sky hasn't fallen in California, or any other state, that has adopted a marriage amendment.

"We absolutely believe the sky is falling," said Kris Mineau, a former Air Force pilot and pastor who is president of the Massachusetts Family Institute. "But we believe it would be a generational downfall, not an overnight downfall."

Exactly. Surprisingly, the article does go on to detail some of the negative consequences, though the writer probably doesn’t think of them as negatives.

It's no secret that the law does have some effect on behavior, even if it doesn't change behavior in every incident. If a court or a legislature goes against the will of the people and thus the state adopts an official position, that does have an effect on opinions. The marriage neutering advocates are counting on that reality.