Maryland's court blows it

This week, Maryland's Supreme Court let us all down. As Kelly Brownington wrote in the Sun:

The court's majority opinion rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the 1973 statute discriminates on the basis of gender. In addition, the court concluded that while marriage is a fundamental right, it is not a right extended to gays and lesbians under current state law.

A fundamental right not extended to everyone.

How is that "fundamental"? Seriously. How?

Added because it's apparent people have been misinterpreting this. I'm not asking for a discourse on the legal definition. I'm rhetorically asking how we can call something "fundamental" when it is not extended to everyone. Okay? I know it's the law. To quote Mr Bumble, somewhat out of context: "If the law supposes that, the law is a ass — a idiot".

And how's this for a thundering non sequitur? (Though he doesn't slam the door on the idea, at least.)

In the majority opinion, Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote that the state has a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage. But he also reminded lawmakers that they have the right to consider a law permitting same-sex marriages.

"In declaring that the State's legitimate interests in fostering procreation and encouraging the traditional family structure ... our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex," he said.

I got news for Harrell: procreation doesn't have to be "fostered". People will procreate anyway. And since when is "it's traditional" a good defense? A hell of a lot of things we view with horror have been "traditional" - a lot of of them right here.

More than that, would someone please show me how allowing gays to marry would "discourage" opposite-sex marriage, or whatever the opposite of "promote" is? In fact, a study reported in that not-exactly-liberal Wall Street Journal showed the exact opposite happens:

[T]here is no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry weakens the institution. If anything, the numbers indicate the opposite. A decade after Denmark, Norway and Sweden passed their respective partnership laws, heterosexual marriage rates had risen 10.7% in Denmark; 12.7% in Norway; and a whopping 28.8% in Sweden. In Denmark over the last few years, marriage rates are the highest they've been since the early 1970s. Divorce rates among heterosexual couples, on the other hand, have fallen. A decade after each country passed its partnership law, divorce rates had dropped 13.9% in Denmark; 6% in Norway; and 13.7% in Sweden. On average, divorce rates among heterosexuals remain lower now than in the years before same-sex partnerships were legalized.

In addition, out-of-wedlock birthrates in each of these countries contradict the suggestion by social conservatives that gay marriage will lead to great increases in out-of-wedlock births and therefore less family stability for children. In Denmark, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births was 46% in 1989; now it is 45%. In Norway, out-of-wedlock births jumped from 14% in 1980 to 45% right before partnerships were adopted in 1993; now they stand at 51%, a much lower rate of increase than in the decade before same-sex unions. The Swedish trend mirrors that of Norway, with much lower rates of increase post-partnership than pre-partnership.

Can we argue that allowing same-sex marriage helps opposite-sex marriage? Well, no; correlation isn't cause. But we can certainly say that there is correlation. We can say that there's no harm done.

Stopping people from getting married is what hurts marriage.

And we can argue the rational point of view that by continually saying, as some opponents do, that "gays can get everything they need without having to get married" does say that getting married isn't necessary. Perhaps not for anyone? Perhaps... "We don't need a piece of paper" was a heterosexual saying, after all.

And then there's this sophistry:

The majority opinion rejected the plaintiffs' claim that denying gay marriages is a form of sex discrimination. In fact, sex discrimination does not apply to individuals, only to groups, the court stated.

This is a group, guys. A pretty big group, too.

No, as far as I'm concerned there's only one valid argument, and that's the "it's against my religion" argument. But you know what? There is no church out there with a monopoly on marriage, not in this country. Divorced people can get married (just look at the leadership of the GOP). People can marry outside their faith. Atheists can get married - atheistically. No religious official has to be involved at all.

The state has to be involved; it's "by the authority vested in me by the state" that makes the religious "rite of holy matrimony" mean anything for your taxes, inheritance, kids, property, health care, etc. A marriage license is a legal document not a holy ritual. Nobody's saying that passing a law allowing same-sex marriage will force churches who only accept opposite-sex marriages to perform them. It's churches screaming about the law. (Some churches; others are happy to perform "rites of holy union" for any couple. Some are happy to perform them for a man and a bunch of women - or girls.)

The solution is to decouple this legal ritual entirely from the church. Entirely. If you want to conclude the civil contract of "union", do it civilly. Just like you can get "married" by a JP and not drag any clergy into it. But go all the way. Don't let that clergyman have the right to do anything legally binding. Make all couples go to the city hall, not just for the license, but also for the "ceremony". That way, if a church doesn't want to marry two guys, fine - just like you can't force one to marry a divorcee or heretic.

The thing is, those divorcees or heretics don't have to go to a church to marry. Why should anyone else?

I'm writing my state representatives. Civil marriage is a civil right. It shouldn't be hostage to religion.

added after reading Hax's chat today - a comment posted by someone there which sums it all up (responding to someone wondering what's the point in getting married, what with the rising divorce rate and all):

As someone not legally allowed to marry the woman that she loves, I've been forced to think about this a lot.

I have a will, but marriage would mean that if I died, she wouldn't have to go through probate court to inherit the car that's only in my name because owning joint property is harder if you're not married. Marriage would mean she could inherit my Social Security benefits. Marriage would mean I wouldn't worry they could keep her out of the hospital if I got sick.

It's true that lots of marriages end in divorce. But you know what? Having been married even means that when the relationship ends, there's a legal structure to protect both of you, divide up your joint resources, decide custody, etc. If you don't or can't get married, no protections there either.

It just burns me up to no end to hear straight folks whining about how marriage is meaningless. It's only meaningless if you've never really thought about what it would mean if you couldn't have it.