One is a start.
Massachusetts’ highest court ruled Wednesday that gay couples deserve full marriage rights, not just civil unions, under the state constitution.
So if all goes well, Massachusetts could become the first state to allow same-sex marriages as soon as May.
We’re not quite as progressive in Illinois.
Although Cook County launched a domestic partnership registry on Oct. 1 that recognizes same-sex households, it’s still no civil union, let alone full-blown marriage.
I visited the county building on the first day of that partnership registry and spoke with several couples who registered. Now, months later, I’ve gone back to get their take on the Massachusetts ruling and the fight for gay marriage.
Julie Kata, 30, cheered the decision, even as she pointed to more battles and day-to-day struggles ahead.
“It comes down to the little things,” said Kata, who registered her domestic partnership in October and two weeks later held a wedding ceremony with her partner, Stephanie Brewer.
“When people see a ring on my finger, they ask, ‘Oh, how long have you been married? How did you meet your husband? Do you and your husband have children?’ Depending on the situation, I have to come up with a creative answer or … I’m put into an uncomfortable spot where I have to explain myself.”
Kata said she believes steps such as the Massachusetts ruling will help prevent those kinds of blanket assumptions. “The more we make it a part of the system, the more it will be broadly recognized.”
And it is an extraordinary time for the gay rights movement. The court’s decision follows a year that brought major attention to gay issues–the Supreme Court’s ruling against a sodomy law, Canada’s move to support gay marriage–and the momentum keeps building.
But such intense focus isn’t always a good thing when it distorts the issue, argued David Jablonowski, 33, who also registered his domestic partnership with Cook County in October.
“People talk a lot about gay marriage, but you can’t easily address it in a quick soundbite,” he said.
Jablonowski is alarmed by the conservatives’ viewpoint–that marriage should be defined as a union of a man and a woman–in part because it glosses over other legitimate rights at stake. The Massachusetts decision frames marriage in legal terms.
“My desire for same-sex marriage is less religiously focused and more financially focused,” he said. “I’m looking for the same financial benefits that different-sex couples enjoy.”
The sanctity-of-marriage argument doesn’t hold water for Jablonowski, either.
“I see a huge percentage of opposite sex couples that are adulterous or divorced. No one has it right, no one has it perfect, and gays and lesbians should have that opportunity to make those mistakes too,” he said.
“I find it odd that President Bush seeks to pass legislation that would ‘protect’ marriage [by] preventing same-sex marriages. He doesn’t seem to be as concerned that Britney Spears feels that a 55-hour union can be discarded with such disdain.”
Kata agreed. Gay marriage is an important issue and will benefit from public attention, but it shouldn’t be tossed around as the litmus test for our next president.
“At the end of the day, I tend to worry about the homeless and the people that don’t have health insurance and that we’re spending billions to go to Mars when our children don’t have schools,” she said.
“There are some more pressing issues to be addressed. Is it truly detrimental to the United States if my partner and I can marry? Probably not.”
———-
asneumer@tribune.com
