Musing on Something That's Sort of Like Marriage But Isn't Quite - Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships

Ok. I have to say I'm not quite sure I get it. In fact, I'm pretty
sure I don't. Why are we splitting hairs over a word?

What word, you ask? Well…. marriage.

California recently upheld the right of same sex couples to marry,
stating in the majority opinion: "Upon reviewing the numerous past
California decisions that examine the underlying bases and
significance of the constitutional right to marry, the opinion
explains that the core substantive rights embodied in the right to
marry "include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual
to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to
share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected family
possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same
respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as
marriage."

It continues: "in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes
that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term
committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for
and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual
orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual
orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a
legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

Core substantive rights embodied in the right to marry….. an
officially recognized and protected family …… same respect and dignity
….. traditionally designated as marriage. Sexual orientation …. does
not constitute ….. basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.

It makes total sense to me. So much so that I can't conceive of a
paradigm where one's sexual orientation could possibly be the basis
upon which legal rights are denied.

One argument against same sex marriage insists allowing gay and
lesbian partners the protections of marriage will somehow endanger my
marriage. Uhmm … ok …. Could someone please explain this to me because
I can't quite seem to grasp it.

I can understand the possible risk to my marriage of … say … no fault
divorce laws, legalized prostitution, rampant pornography, epidemic
crass consumerism, addiction, cultural acceptance (celebration, even!)
of infidelity, or a work "ethic" that undercuts our couple time. But
I'm not quite grasping how supporting the rights of other human beings
to create and protect a family will harm mine. Seems to me if we
really want to protect marriages we'd be speaking out about the real
risks rather than some smokescreen fantasy created to promote the
agenda of a religious mindset.

And now we get to the crux of the matter, don't we?
Senator McCain in his appearance on Ellen shortly after the California
court decision had a smooth, politically correct statement on the tip
of his tongue, "Well, my thoughts are that I think that people should
be able to enter into legal agreements, and I think that that is
something that we should encourage, particularly in the case of
insurance and other areas, decisions that have to be made. I just
believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman."

Hair splitting, I say. A contract that gives (almost) the same rights
as marriage. Only instead of lace and flowers one arrives in a similar
place with lawyers and paperwork. That's not to say you couldn't have
a civil or religious commitment ceremony to mark the event; you could.
The difference is, from what I can tell, the solemnization of the
union cannot be made legal by virtue of this ceremony …. as it can for
straight couples. Why on earth not? Is there something that makes same
sex couples so different that we have to offer them a tortuous,
roundabout, coldly legal, method of getting to almost (but not quite)
the same place of creating and protecting their families?

Or is it fear and prejudice? Fear and prejudice and …. religious
beliefs? Fear and prejudice can, and have over and over again, be
addressed by looking closely at same sex couples, their children, and
their interactions with society. We know now that these families do
just as well in all those areas as straight families. We are, after
all, wonderfully complex beings regardless of our sexual orientation.
That seems to leave religious beliefs as the central disagreement. And
that is a problem.

In the US, thanks to the First Amendment, we have the right to freedom
of religion. We also have a freedom from religion. We can believe
whatever we want. What we cannot do is impose, via law or government
action, our religious beliefs upon another. No matter how deeply we
believe marriage is between a man and a woman because our god or
religious text says so, we absolutely cannot make laws which deny a
segment of the nation's couples and families the same rights as
others. The right to create, protect, and nurture, in the same way, a
long term familial relationship with a person of his or her choosing.

I know the day is at hand when we will be as aghast at this denial of
rights to same sex couples as we now are at the identical past
discrimination against interracial couples not so very long ago. From
now on when I say Musing on Marriage it's for every family … gay or
straight.

Musing on Marriage(tm) Betrayed Wives Club - Reality Check

So Barbara Walters had an affair. A kiss on the cheek from the Dalai
Lama and a ….. well …. you know …. from former US Senator Brooke. A
married man with two children. And then there's Eliot Spitzer,
Superhero for Morality, caught with his pants down in a brothel. Not
to mention Larry Craig whose "wide stance" got him a bit more than he
bargained for in his fifteen minutes of fame. And Oprah, Queen of the
Underdog, whose bulldog tenacity for saving everyone and everything
apparently did not kick in when she decided to dally with someone
else's hubby.

And we, the mundane of the world, are all aghast and adizzy at the
foibles of the rich and famous. Like the proverbial train wreck, we
can't look away as we hang on every little whisper waiting for the
next round of juicy details. How old (gasp!) was this overpaid
prostitute? Really? He was the first African American senator? How
many knocks did it take to entice the vice officer out of his stall?
We're like eight graders whispering and passing notes with heightened
intensity as we ignore the reality beneath the prurience.

Standing in the shadow, if we care to look, we can see them: The
Betrayed Wives Club. Or, The Wounded and Left for Dead Spouses Club.
Or, The Children of Cheaters Club.

We all know that sex sells. I get why the media focuses on the lusty
details of sexual betrayal (all the while shaking their heads and tsk
tsking for good show). But, really, when it comes right down to it,
glorifying infidelity as just another bit of celebrity chatter is as
offensive as reporting the details of a child murder using the format
of a slasher flick. It denies, completely, the dignity of the real
people whose lives will never be the same. The ones who live day in
and day out with the reality of having their choices stolen and their
lives shattered by betrayal from their inner circle.

Spitzer's wife, Silda, stood by him as he apologized to his
constituents in front of a packed crowd of microphones and flashbulbs.
The same microphones and flashbulbs that dashed off to vie for the
first interview with the "high class call girl". Where was the rush to
explore the agonizing pain of a wife betrayed? Where was the
discussion of the loss of innocence of his two teenage daughters? How
does one begin to piece the shattered remnants of a family back
together after this sort of loss? Does anyone really care? To the
hundreds of thousands of betrayed partners (and their children!)
around the country it doesn't look like it.

Imagine, if you can, the torment of standing in the checkout line at
your local grocery, unable to escape from the screaming headlines
heralding the birth of yet another celebrity "love child" (Shiloh,
anyone?) while your still-married-to-you hubby is expecting a bundle
of joy with some woman he met on the job and has shacked up with on
the other side of town. Or how about the panic-attack tunnel vision
nausea that comes with tuning into Letterman's lighthearted banter
about the Larry Craig fiasco (can you imagine the horror his wife must
be enduring?) or the double trouble family of New York's Vito Fossella.

Infidelity doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's not a victimless event.
People get hurt. More than hurt – they are traumatized in a way no one
should ever endure. Marriages are shattered. Children are ripped from
carefree lives. Real, live, breathing, human beings are brought to
their knees with the pain and grief of it all. Treating it as a joke,
or something to bandy about intellectually, is as immature and selfish
as the betrayal itself. As one woman put it so eloquently, "People who
have not experienced infidelity will not understand how watching
Barbara Walters casually talk about her affair, with no remorse, for
me is like watching someone recount raping someone as a once pleasant
memory."

C'mon America. Let's reclaim our integrity and our compassion. The
next time we hear another one of -those- news bites let's do a reality
check and remember the silent majority of pain behind the slick
sexiness of reporting for ratings.

Penny Tupy is a professional marriage coach and the founder of
Marriage Fidelity Day. She can be reached for coaching or interviews
at 651.775.8302. For more of her caustic humor on topics of great
import visit her on the web at swww.symcinc.com