there's a "man in the street"-style article in today's new york times about the massachusetts court decision gay marriage ruling. the reporter apparently wandered around ardmore, pa asking random people what they thought about gay marriage. despite the fact that ardmore is right next-door to me (my back window looks into ardmore), i was not interviewed for the article, but i nevertheless feel entitled to throw in my two-cents as an almost ardmore resident.
the thrust of the article is that while people seemed to be evenly split on whether to allow gays to marry, many of the people who opposed gay marriages did not have a problem with private gay relationships or even extending some benefits of marriage to gay couples. in my opinion the people interviewed were kind of missing the point. gay marriage already happens. for years, in massachussetts and all around the country, gay couples have held wedding ceremonies. these ceremonies have happened long before massachussetts decision, and will continue to take place regardless of how this debate plays out politically. while it's not clear to me what percentage of gay people get married, or even want to get married, there is undeniably some portion of the gay population that wants to get married and will do so. there is no way to prevent them from doing so, as long as the first amendment right to free association exists in the constitution.
so the issue is not whether gays will marry, but only whether the government will recognize the couples as married afterwards. the main reason that anyone would care about governmental recognition are the benefits that go along with being a spouse under the law. spouses legally have a say in their partner's medical treatment, are entitled to survivor's benefits, have inheritance rights in the absence of a will, and have certain rights if the relationship should end through divorce proceedings.
thus the only practical issue in this debate is whether gay couples should get the public benefits of marriage or not. again, gay people already get married. so everyone who says they are for some kind of civil partnership that gives the benefits of marriage to gay couples but are not for gay marriage itself, are really missing the point. if they could just get over their fear of the words "gay marriage"maybe they would see that.
that's the rant the new york times missed out on when they did not interview me yesterday.
