By John Corvino
As I write this I am en route to Houston, Texas, where I will participate in a public debate on same-sex marriage. By the time you read this, Texans will have voted upon (and doubtless passed) an amendment "providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Leave it to Texas to provide unwitting comic relief in the midst of political nastiness. Read the text of the amendment carefully. It prohibits the state from "recognizing any legal status identical…to marriage." It is a fundamental principle of logic that anything is identical to itself. Ergo, if you prohibit recognition of anything identical to marriage, you prohibit recognition of marriage. Any marriage. George and Laura, prepare for your annulment.
Can you say "whoops?"
While I very much doubt that any judge will interpret the amendment this way, the literal wording of the text really does prohibit marriage. Marriage is the only thing IDENTICAL to marriage (anything else is merely similar).
The amendment was introduced by State Representative Warren Chisum, whose obsession with homosexuality often leads him to say stupid things. When I lived in Texas in the mid-90s, Chisum was fond of arguing that homosexuality must be wrong because "even animals don't do that." But of course, (1) animals do exhibit homosexuality, and (2) animals are a ridiculous source for moral standards. Should I ever encounter Warren Chisum in public, I'm going to get down on the ground and start humping his leg just to drive that point home.
Another great Chisum moment: during a Texas House debate on sodomy laws some years ago, fellow representative Debra Danburg pointed out that Chisum's favored sodomy law would prohibit sodomy between married heterosexual partners. "Mr. Chisum, you're trying to make it criminal even between the opposite sex, even if they are married?" Danburg asked.
"ESPECIALLY if they are married," he replied, prompting peals of laughter.
This would all be rather funny if it didn't have serious repercussions for Texas citizens. Same-sex marriage is already against the law in Texas. Texas won't recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions performed in other states. The real effect of the amendment would be to threaten domestic-partner benefits, hurting gay and lesbian families in such areas as insurance, medical decision-making, bereavement leave, inheritance, property, and parental rights.
Proponents will say that the purpose of the amendment is merely to protect marriage, not to threaten people's benefits. They're lying. The tactic is a familiar "bait and switch" technique detailed by E.J. Graff in a recent opinion piece on TomPaine.com:
"Here's what they'll tell you when they're trying to persuade voters to pass a one-man-one-woman marriage amendment: The amendment will merely put velvet ropes around the word 'marriage.' It won't be mean; it won't deprive lesbian and gay couples of job benefits; it won't close the door to other protections for same-sex couples and their families….
"But once those amendments are in place, the family values folks race, pitchforks in hand, into their local city councils, courts, public universities and legislatures. Arguing vehemently that voters had clearly declared that marriage was between a man and a woman, they insist that partnership recognition under any other name is 'marriage in disguise.' Civil unions? A naked invasion of that sacred, unique, time-honored territory called marriage. Domestic partnership benefits? Marriage! Shared health insurance? Marriage, all marriage, all forever off the table."
Think Graff is exaggerating? We in Michigan know better. Those who fought for our anti-gay-marriage amendment assured us in their brochures that, "Proposal 2 is only about marriage. Marriage is a union between husband and wife. Proposal 2 will keep it that way. This is not about rights or benefits or how people choose to live their lives. This has to do with family, children and the way people are. It merely settles the question once and for all what marriage is — for families today and future generations."
Really? Tell that to the employees of the city of Kalamazoo whose partners lost their health-insurance benefits after Attorney General Mike Cox ruled that offering such benefits violated the amendment.
Fortunately, Judge Joyce Draganchuck disagreed with Cox, ruling this past September that such benefits are benefits of employment, not marriage. But the State Court of Appeals has halted her ruling until the issue is finally decided, "protecting Michigan from whatever locusts might descend if state employees' same-sex partners could fill their prescriptions," as Graff sardonically observed.
Texas will be the 17th state to pass such a needless and mean-spirited amendment. Bet that it won't be the last.
