You Can't Do That Either!

The debate that goes on in this country about the nature of marriage, and who may and may not participate in that institution, and the benefits it confers, has just notched another milepost.

The state of Michigan (near neighbor to us Ohioans) has an elected supreme court which has just handed down a ruling that finds that state institutions are banned from allowing or paying "domestic partner benefits" based on a 2004 amendment (passed by voters) that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

As I understand the chain of events, those who were the primary advocates for the marriage amendment in Michigan campaigned for it by insisting that it would have no impact on domestic partnership benefits -- it was only about protecting the institution of marriage. People could still create mechanisms to assure that their "non-marital" life partners could share in their benefits, have a say in medical decision making related to them, inherit, etc. That was the story that was told, and seemingly enough people bought it that the restrictive statute was passed by the majority of Michigan voters. Then, the very NEXT day after the ballot measure passed, the group that advocated for the marriage amendment filed suit to ban the extension of state paid benefits to domestic partners.

Sigh. You know, I don't want to damage or limit anyone's ability to marry, or to live and benefit within that relational dynamic. I understand that there will likely never be laws that would grant me and mine entree to the state of marriage (or even something that looks similar). We violate the "numerocity" requirement for marriage -- that one and one business. Heck, even the GLBT community won't go to bat for those of us who don't adhere to the "marriage is for two" convention. Wouldn't want to give credence to the argument that "if you start stretching the definition of marriage, soon you will have groups of three and four and more wanting to marry -- and then where will the country end up?" However, we've always believed that we might be able to create legal and financial structures that would provide for us most of the benefits of the social institution of marriage. We've thought that we could protect our property and define who would be able to make decisions for each of us in the event of a serious illness by creating legal partnerships and writing wills. In truth, we've believed that our love was adequate and did not need the state to endorse it or define it -- if we could protect ourselves and our family legally.

Now, with this ruling, it appears that we may not be able to achieve those objectives in the long run. It appears that, at least in some parts of this country, we can't be married, and we can't even create structures that might act in ways that are similar to a marriage. The Michigan Supreme Court has made it clear: You can't do that (if "that" is marriage), and you can't do anything that even remotely looks like "that" either.

How disheartening.

swan