Who knew?

[howeird]

I didn't know I felt that way, but I found myself a little misty-eyed as they were pronounced "spouses for life". This morning KGO radio broadcast live the first same-sex wedding in Santa Clara County, a pair of Silicon Valley men who had been married during the legendary San Francisco Valentine's Day extravaganza. The vows were simple, they exchanged rings and promised to "share all my love" with each other. No "obey" but also no "honor". The gender-neutral wording was a little strained, and they answered "I do" to The Question, which was worded in a way which called for an answer of "I will". But that was pretty romantic - the message being that loving each other doesn't start with the wedding, it is validated by the wedding.

The woman performing the ceremony also added a nice touch. Instead of merely saying "by the authority vested in my by the State of California", she added her title, Deputy Marriage Commissioner. It added that Official Touch which was lacking in the SF weddings.

---

Prior to the wedding, the couple was interviewed, and one of them said the Santa Clara wedding was important because it was in their home county, and it was sanctioned by the state, "not just the mayor" of a nearby city. And whatever happened later, he said, this marriage license will not be revoked. He also said he expected his marriage to last more than the 16 years his parents' did.

---

I'm surprised at my emotional response because I am totally against government involvement in, and legal recognition of marriage. It violates the separation of church and state and equal protection under the law. Alimony is obscene, divorce settlements should not require lawyers, child support should be decided based on each spouse's income and custody should be awarded by merit and interest, mediated perhaps by a panel of social workers. Taxes should be paid by the individual, not jointly.

We have already come a long way. When I was a child, an unmarried couple could not legally check into a hotel together in most states. Wives could not get separate lines of credit. It was difficult for a married woman to get a separate checking account. The law said a wife could not file rape charges against a husband. In many states, including New York, the only grounds for divorce was adultery proved in a court of law. Women were automatically given custody, alimony, child support and half the husband's possessions upon divorce, regardless of who initiated the divorce proceedings or any of the relevant circumstances. Pre-nuptial agreements were not honored in most states. And so on.

Comments

[susandennis]

Nicely done. I will also add that I love reading about all my LJ friends' wedding plans. They are so cute and giddy about it. It's fun to watch.

In the 70's my husband got a vasectomy - no permission needed from me. He did not even have to tell me. It was not legal for me to get steralized without his notorized signature and the written approval of a board certified psychiatrist.

We have, indeed, come far. I'm so glad I have lived to see this.

[cinchntouch.livejournal.com]

Wow. Just wow.

[bovil.livejournal.com]

. It violates the separation of church and state and equal protection under the law.

Athiests get married too.

[howeird]

That sidesteps the point. Getting married isn't the issue, it's the law treating one set of people (married folk) differently than another set of people. That's unconstitutional.

[bovil.livejournal.com]

The unromantic part is it's the government codifying a business relationship. For all the speech about religion, family is ultimately business. "Marriage" packages up a bunch of legal responsibility that spouses have to each other, and does it in a way that's stronger than simple contract law.

There are a few cases (taxes, where it's usually a net loss and social security benefits, where it's usually a net gain) of the government granting rights to married people, but that's an acknowledgement of the simple fact that, even when accounts are kept separate, earnings and expenses are shared between the parties.

Now I would prefer the tax situation to be simpler, but the end-of-life issues support is a big deal. When I talked with my Mom last week, she said "Well, I'm glad we won't have to get one of those calls from Kevin saying that he can't make decisions for you."

[howeird]

Yes, I totally agree, the way the government has things set up, marriage is the only legal solution to a wide range of decision-making and privacy issues. My youngest sister got married because the man she loves was diagnosed with terminal cancer and it was the only way she could be with him in the hospital and take paid leave for that. They did not want to get married, especially for something as morbid as that. The good news is he is still with us, 20+ years later, and they are still married.

It would be so much easier if the government would get out of our bedrooms and out of our hearts.