Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Family Law Blogs -> Independent Gay Forum

Family Law

: Independent Gay Forum

Happily Ever After, Delayed

pstrongby John Corvino/strongbr /emVersions of this column previously appeared in the bLos Angeles Times/b (November 6, 2008) and at b365gay.com/b (November 7, 2008)./embr //p pOn election night, I was less anxious about who would become president than about whether a certain little girl could marry her princess./p pIrsquo;m talking about the little Latina girl in the California ldquo;Yes on 8rdquo; commercials, who comes home from school to tell her mommy about a fairy tale in which a prince marries another prince./p pldquo;And I can marry a princess!rdquo; she cheerfully announces, prompting a worried look from her mother and a voiceover in which a law professor warns that if gay marriage isnrsquo;t stopped, parental rights will be trampled./p pStatistically speaking, the chances that shersquo;ll want to marry a princess are low. In any case, reading the ldquo;wrongrdquo; fairy tales wonrsquo;t alter her sexual orientation. If books had that sort of influence, every Cinderella would grow up to desire a Prince Charming and vice-versa./p pIn the real world, some Cinderellas fall in love with other Cinderellas; some princes fall in love with other princes. In California, they may be allowed to live happily ever after, but they wonrsquo;t (for the time being) be allowed to get married. Prop. 8 passed 52-48%, after a $74 million battle. (A similar measure passed in Arizona, and Florida voted to prohibit not just same-sex marriage but also civil unions and domestic partnerships.)/p pI say ldquo;for the time beingrdquo; because nobody expects this to be the end of the story. California same-sex couples will continue to receive the statewide legal incidents of marriage via domestic partnerships. Meanwhile, other states, mainly along the coasts, will recognize same-sex couples: some with domestic partnerships, some with civil unions, and a few with outright marriage./p pEventually, this hodgepodge will prove legally unwieldy, or socially inconvenient, or morally embarrassingmdash;probably all of the abovemdash;and California will revisit the marriage question. If trends continue, marriage equality will someday win the day./p pIn the meantime, what difference does it make if princes and princes can only have ldquo;domestic partnershipsrdquo; but not marriage?/p pIt makes a difference in two important ways. The first is legal: because of this amendment, a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts (for example) will have absolutely no legal standing when traveling through California. The text is clear: ldquo;Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.rdquo;/p pSince our Massachusetts couple has marriage, and not ldquo;domestic partnership,rdquo; the Golden State would treat them as nothing more than roommatesmdash;which could prove devastating in an emergency situation./p pAs the law professor intones in that ldquo;Yes on 8rdquo; commercial: ldquo;Think it canrsquo;t happen? Itrsquo;s already happening.rdquo; The hodgepodge of legal statuses for same-sex couples has proven a legal nightmare for those who travel or relocate./p pThe second difference is less tangible but just as powerful: the cultural significance of marriage./p pHere we saw a fundamental tension in the ldquo;Yes on 8rdquo; message. On the one hand, they argued that since gays had ldquo;all the rightsrdquo; of marriage, there was no reason to demand the word itself. On the other hand, their tenacious fight to keep the word exclusive attests to its significance./p pBecause, you see, princesses donrsquo;t dream about someday ldquo;domestically partnering withrdquo; the person they fall in love with. They dream about marrying himmdash;or, in a minority of cases, HER./p pTo that minority, 52% of California voters sent a discriminatory message: you are not good enough for marriage. Your relationshipsmdash;no matter how loving, how committed, how exemplarymdash;are not ldquo;realrdquo; marriage./p pOne thing that opponents and supporters of Prop. 8 agree on: ldquo;realrdquo; marriage transcends state recognition of it. And thatrsquo;s another reason why this debate will continue. Because itrsquo;s not just a debate about what California should or should not legally recognize. Itrsquo;s also about what sort of relationships are morally valuable, and why./p pNotably, same-sex relationships were virtually invisible in the ldquo;No on 8rdquo; campaign. I assume thatrsquo;s because campaign research showed that images of gay couples donrsquo;t resonate with undecided voters./p pMaybe thatrsquo;s true in the short run. But in the long run, people are far more likely to support gay rights when they know gay people and see the palpable ways in which marriage matters to us./p pMoving forward, then, we gay and lesbian citizens need to tell our stories. We need to show that gays, like everyone else, want someone to have and to hold, for better or for worse. We need to show that when we find such relationships, itrsquo;s a good thingmdash;not just for us but for the community at large./p pWe need to explain that we are not interested in confusing children, or in forcing princesses on little girls who donrsquo;t want them. But we also need to show that girls who grow up to want princesses deserve to live happily ever after, too./p pIf trends continue, we will someday make that casemdash;in time for that little girl to marry whomever she chooses./p

Full post as published by Independent Gay Forum on November 09, 2008 (boomark / email).