In Celebration of Equal Marriage

E.J. Graff revels in the wonderful news from California, where the Supreme Court declared that its unconstitutional and illegal to give different names to the legal unions of same-sex and different-sex couples (i.e. "domestic partnerships" versus "marriage").

I'm just reading the decision now so I don't have a full formed and cogent response--except wanting to cry with happiness at being declared a full citizen in a state that's more populous than Canada. Read the decision yourself, if you like. The decision mentions the fact that, in 1948, the CSC was the first to strike down its state's interracial marriage ban--19 years before the USSC did so in Loving v. Virginia. The decision links its 1948 decision in Perez to its decision today (Mildred Loving herself made the link too, although I would argue it's distinct... but that's for another day).

The news came to me yesterday afternoon via a deliriously happy text message that sets the tone for the celebration this deserves. While its true that this decision will likely move towards a state vote, Graff points out that marriage equality activists have, in brilliant anticipation, have been laying the foundation for that for years. They're ready.

And, for now, 100,000 registered domestic partners in California and their kids have full legal equality. This news numbs the sting from  Michigan's Supreme Court, which just denied same-sex partners health benefits for employees of public universities, community colleges, school districts and local and state governments. Which means hundreds of people who had health insurance two weeks ago now suddenly do not--including the couples' children, if the publicly employed partner wasn't the one that gave birth or signed the adoption papers.

This, after our state outlawed marriage for a sizable number of its citizens. You know, when anti-equal marriage folks swore up and down that they were not taking anything away from same-sex partners; they were just "protecting marriage."

But like California's LGBT and marriage equality activists, there are some smart folks in Michigan who anticipated this downward slope in humanity. The University of Michigan took the good kind of preemptive action and classed same-sex partners of at least some of its faculty and staff as an "other qualified adult"--rather than that ever so evil "domestic partner"--and it provides them with the same benefits it would to another employee's spouse. I believe Michigan State University and a few other places are also fixing to work around our new and terrible law.

What is especially interesting here is that this state bemoans the "brain drain" of its brightest and most talented young people. Why do they leave? What can we do differently that will make them want to stay?  It's a question for an interminable number of editorials, columns and conferences. Jobs, enhanced cultural life and mixed-use housing are the usual answers, and I'm all for them. Impressive steps have been taken on those fronts in a lot of cities.

But what nobody's talking about is how bright young people just might want to live in a place that is just and humane; where marriage equality is one of many matters that manifest a state's commitment to human rights. Just maybe, people want to live in a place where they or their friends can choose to marry the person they love; where they're employer will support them and their family. I know I do.

The University of Michigan and Michigan State are on to this of course--they know they will be at a loss if they want to attract the "leaders and the best" to their faculty if it is illegal for them to support same-sex couples. I'd like to see the rest of the state would set aside the "brain drain" complaints and look to the university's lead.

Until then, hats off to the folks with forethought and the folks that aren't giving in to this. California gives us a tremendous point of celebration in what is too often a disheartening struggle. Along with E.J. Graff, let's take a moment to revel in what it feels like when justice is served.

Play it again, Sam:

We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

...We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple's constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution.

Furthermore, the circumstance that the current California statutes assign a different name for the official family relationship of same-sex couples as contrasted with the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause. ... As we shall explain ... the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.