A Hard Week

I have to admit, the recent court defeats for marriage equality -- four in a single week (Georgia, New York, Tennessee and Nebraska) -- have me feeling rather downhearted. Georgia and Tennessee don't bother me so much (they were decided mostly on procedural grounds), but New York and Nebraska were hard to take, for different reasons.

The New York decision was a blow because I would have hoped that New York judges would have had some actual contact with gay people (outside of watching footage from the pride parade) and realized that allowing same-sex couples to marry will not deter (or encourage) opposite couples from joining in wedded bliss. The court's stated reason for denying marriage equality was that, in essence, "when straight couples have sex, children may result, so we need to encourage them to stay together." If stable relationships are good for opposite-sex couples, and therefore good for the country, they are good for same-sex couples, and therefore good for the country. For couples who bring children into the world, that stable relationship is especially important. For couples who do not or cannot become biological parents, the stability and mutual support marriage can provide is still extremely valuable. Since I can see no logical reason (please, feel free to point one out to me if I've missed it) why civil marriage equality would lessen the value of traditional marriage, either to any single marriage or for the country as whole, I don't see why equality should be witheld. The 14th Amendment seems very clear on the matter of equal treatment under the law.

Nebraska was worse. Not because I expected more of the state where both my parents were born, but because of the severity of the slapdown the court delivered. First, little was being asked. According to the court's own opinion, the gay rights groups that filed the suit did not "assert a right to marriage or same-sex unions. Rather, they seek "a level playing field, an equal opportunity to convince the people's elected representatives that same-sex relationships deserve legal protection."" Not much to ask, is it?

The Nebraska court fell into the same hole as the New York court did -- deciding that since opposite-sex marriage is good because "by affording legal recognition and a basket of rights and benefits to married heterosexual couples, such laws encourage procreation to take place within the socially recognized unit that is best situated for raising children," same-sex marriage is somehow bad because it cannot naturally result in issue. Unfortunately, neither court offered any evidence as to why (or how) allowing same-sex marriage would somehow cause harm to opposite-sex marriages, or deter heterosexuals from marrying. "Whatever our personal views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot conclude that the State’s justification lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests." They just don't offer any reason why those state interests would be harmed.

Making it worse, the Nebraska consitutional amendment at stake not only prohibits gay marriage, but asserts that "a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska." In effect, Nebraska has said same-sex relationships mean nothing on any legal level. Gay couples do not exist as couples in any legal sense, and cannot obtain any rights available for married couples.

Ouch. Here's hoping for better days ahead.