Feb 06 2009
What’s in a word
Childhood fairy tales inspire most of us to seek out a soul mate with which we could live happily ever after. But the dream-like books of fiction rarely, if at all, follow the characters for a lifetime.
Hillary and Julie Goodridge, one of the first couples to wed in Massachusetts when the state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled to recognize same-sex marriages in May 17, 2004, discovered that — unlike the whimsical stories of yesteryears — “ever after” is rarely sealed with a ring, a kiss and a nuptial.
In 2001, the Goodridge’s were among the seven gay couples who filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s gay marriage ban. Recently, the couple filed for divorce in Suffolk Probate and Family Court after announcing their separation in 2006.
I empathize with the ordeal of the Goodridge’s and the concerns about the impact of divorce — of all couples — on society.
Almost two years ago, my heart was broken. The man I planned to spend the rest of my life with decided “ever after” was not a road he wanted to travel with me. The experience was excruciating but I learned two very important lessons, among the many others you gain in a relationship.
The first is that you can’t force anyone to stay in a relationship when their heart is not invested, because relationships and commitments take more than one person.
The second lesson gave me an understanding of the love others have had for me and my own capacity to love and commit to another human being. I realized was able to spend my life committed to one person, faithfully and loyally. I also realized that commitment meant much more than monogamy.
The story-book ending, doesn’t conclude after the wedding, a step I also planned to take with my former partner. And, it isn’t always happy. But that’s what marriage and love is all about: a journey filled with potholes, hurdles and roadblocks in the company of another being, who at times challenges your perceptions and is imperfect, yet ultimately helps you grow as a person. Again, it takes the commitment and desire of two people willing to take the trek.
The women now are facing harsh criticism from opponents of same-sex marriage, who are using the Goodridge’s dissolution as a dagger to underline the divisiveness and bad taste same-sex marriage can have on the nation.
“I … can’t help but reflect on the pain this couple has caused on the commonwealth and the nation to redefine marriage,” said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute in an interview with the Boston Herald. “And now they’re getting divorced? It doesn’t make a lot of sense. Obviously, they don’t hold the institution (of marriage) in very high esteem.”
News of the Goodridge’s divorce comes at time of legal showdown in California. The California Supreme Court is scheduled, March 5, to hear arguments regarding the future of same-sex nuptials, ensuring a decision in state before the summer.
The high court set three hours on its calendar in San Francisco, considering legal challenges to voter-approved Prop. 8 that argue the November initiative is invalid.
The 2008 elections, Proposition 8 restored the ban on same-sex marriage by 52 to 48 percent vote, after the state Supreme Court in May 2008 found the prior law outlawing same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
Surprisingly, Attorney General Jerry Brown vowed to oppose the Proposition 8, stating that the measure strikes down an existing constitutional right.
The Court also will on the fate of thousands of same-sex couples who married before voters approved the measure. The justices have 90 days from the March 5 hearing to decide the case.
Several opponents of same-sex marriage threatened a political backlash against the already divided court if the justices overturn the gay-marriage ban.
The fact that a court has to decide on the matter is, in and of itself, appalling. Seems that no matter how much time we spend in school learning history, our legal system, our political system, our government and our people continues to repeat the errors of the past.
While it may have been popular views that decided slavery was morally OK, that Jim Crow laws were justified and that women shouldn’t have the right to vote and that couples different races shouldn’t marry, majority votes should never amount to fairness.
Maybe the solution should come by taking clerical rights to legal marriage from religious institutions. The fact is that separate is not equal. And, while many rights are satisfied through domestic partnerships, homosexuals, who pay taxes and contribute to society as much as heterosexuals, do not have all the rights they are entitled.
What’s in a word?
For the narrow-minded, it may just mean a capricious group whining and being sore losers. But “marriage” connotes more than a romanticized desire embedded in one word.
Unless, all the nations adopt the word “civil unions” as a legal term that entitles loving couples to all rights limited to heterosexuals. Domestic partnerships and civil unions, which for example, exclude same-sex couples from petitioning a foreign-born partner, do not include all the rights and responsibilities afforded to heterosexuals.
