Common Sense	Common Sense Archive

As I write this text, the legislators at my state house (Massachusetts) are sitting as a constitutional convention, which they do every year, I think, and they have a number of items on their plate. One item is the issue of "gay marriage." A recent decision by the majority of the judges on the state's highest court maintained that the state could not refuse issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. This decision set off an uproar, and as a result, attempts to amend the state's constitution are in play at the convention, mostly to define marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman-- at a time that is. The constitution of Massachusetts is 224 years old and it was written in a way that makes it difficult to amend. Other states have different procedures and a good number of them have already changed their constitutions to recognize "marriage" as exclusively a mixed-sex union, including, most recently, my native state of Ohio-- and didn't Gov. Taft, yes, I know, another Taft, seem overly eager to enshrine discrimination in his state's premier document? And the current President of these United States has brought his heft and gravitas to the conversation, in favor of an amendment to the US Constitution to do what Ohio solons have done to theirs. I wish the current occupant of the Oval Office would find it in his heart to take up my position on this public issue, which is something along the line of the late Emma Goldman's.

View our poll archive

The state house has been a circus as this "debate" goes on. Advocates for "traditional marriage" are present, as are substantial numbers of same-sexer supporters. It is a development long past mere political tinkering; the discourse is now emotion-laden. All of this has come as a surprise to me. Actually, one of many surprises. The first surprise was that the marriage issue would so suddenly become the top item on the famous Gay Agenda. It has been kicking around for over 30 years. I recall a picture from the early 1970s, printed in one of the then few gay publications, of two guys being turned away by some town's official, after they had applied for a marriage license. That scene has been repeated many times, with other couples. But the tides of change can erode even the most obstinate obstacle. But I thought other issues would be first up. There are issues of employment discrimination, health care funding, an epidemic to confront, and the ridiculous Don't Ask Don't Tell policy of the military. But the marriage issue is now rattling around the country and little Massachusetts is getting beat up on for being Leader Of The Pack.

Marriage is a peculiar institution, as are most institutions. Many participate nonetheless-- think Rev. Moon with his wholesale marriages. Marriage has its perks and its downsides as well. And there are all kinds of marriages. Between my two brothers and my parents I think there are a dozen marriages, or close to it, in my immediate family, so I've had the opportunity to see the variety of opposite-sex marital options. (My sister-in-law has had six husbands!) Margaret Mead once opined about the option of polygamy and polyandry. She noted that in our culture, such phenomena exist; it's just that we do them serially rather than all-at-once. So, marriage, to quote the late Zelda Fitzgerald, seems to be a moveable feast.

It occurs to me that the role of the state in these affairs is to process an equitable outcome. If two individuals wish to settle down with each other and become a couple, the various benefits and perks accorded to one should be offered to all. I believe that this is how other societies have addressed this issue. Other societies-- in my effort to be polite, they will be nameless-- seek civil remedies to matters of inequity. In our culture, unlike the others, we are still encumbered by the large presence of religious influences and the dash to majoritarianism. Some of the folks at my state house, in support of "traditional" marriage, had signs that read: "Let The People Vote!" Under my state's constitution, once the pols do their thing, amending the document, then the good volk get to weigh in at the ballot box-- yes or no, vote now! But should the good volk vote-- in a climate of emotion and religious hysteria-- on matters of social justice? Isn't our political system designed, in many ways, to prevent this from happening?

What I still don't get, and probably never will, is why many people are so emotionally invested in their own take on marriage. In marriages, there are sex acts involved; there are often children involved; there are finances involved. Everyone, well almost everyone, gets tired to some degree of his or her nearest and dearest over time. But so many lack compassion. So many seem to have no clue. So many seem to have punishment-- a favorite theme among many religious-- on their minds. And, of course, a lot of them just hate queers to begin with and would be content to have the lot of us gone for good. Something to remember, even on your wedding day.

My position? I think people should pursue happiness. I am not part of a couple and probably never will be, though you never know. But for all those persons who are content to be couples and do what couples do-- settle down, be domestic, raise children, be involved in community activities, etc.-- I would expect nothing less than my state legislators, sitting as solons or as constitution amenders, to stand up-- think a production number from Chorus Line-- and bow and say "Thank You." And then do the right thing, which can be, for the lot of them, an iffy thing.

Author Profile:  Mitzel
	Mitzel was a founding member of the Fag Rag collective, and has been a Guide columnist since 1986. He manages Calamus Books near Boston's South Station.
	Email:	mitzel@calamusbooks.com
	Website:	calamusbooks.com