How New York Missed an Opportunity

Last week New York joined the ranks of same-sex marriage allowing states, with a steady stream of licenses surely rolling of the presses starting in late July of this year. (Yesterday evening, Rhode Island limped into a same-sex rights fold with a much further watered down civil union statute. Though the Rhode Island statute is certainly not the desired result, it is better than what they had previously which was no same-sex couple recognition whatsoever.)

Personally, I am elated about the NY bill. It is frankly an embarrassment that New York waited as long as it has done to get this equal footing measure passed. However . . . and it's a big however, New York missed a huge opportunity.

As displeased as I am to say it, the much reviled Sen. Rubén Díaz, Sr. had a point when he stated "[G-d] has settled the definition of marriage, a long time ago." Of course, his statement was factually incorrect. G-d never really settled anything about marriage, at least in the Abrahamic religions. Christianity adopted monogamy during its reverse merger with the Roman Empire, which first started codifying marriage under Augustus in the late 1st Century BCE. Judaism didn't officially ban polygamy until Rabbeinu Gershom ben Judah's synod around 1000 CE, and though some argue that ban was only temporary, it is now obligatory as a "universally accepted custom". Neither of these seem to be particularly divinely decreed monogamy between one man and one woman.

But for whatever reason, this is the "Definition" that permanently etched into Sen. Díaz's mind and the mind of all those who are quick to rush to marriages defense. Sen. Díaz is tangentially "right" that "for a long time" (only a few hundred years, but still in pretty long), marriage has been intricately linked in America to religion.

The problem here really enters when the social and political definitions are made to conform with the "Definition". New York, where the gay rights movement originated in 1969, should have originated the only useful end to all of this nonsense with some semantic slight of hand: The State should issue the same documents to any and every couple (gay, straight, religious, secular, asexual, whatever this is) a "domestic union contract" whereby the two who enter into the contract are therein bound financially, as next-of-kin, and with respect to inheritance and medical decisions, and all other rights currently afforded to a "married couple" according to the Federal laws of the US and the State. If that couple wants to then have a religious, cultural, or ethnic ceremony of within their own community, governed by that specific community's rules and called by that community whatever the hell it chooses ("marriage", for instance), then so be it!

At first there will be an uproar, certainly. But in the end, if you were married under the old regime, none of your rights, privileges or responsibilities changed. If your church, gurdwara, amateur astronomy enthusiasts group, Bieber superfan association, or local equestrian club had a different set of paperwork and/or rites that were necessary for you to be "married" under their purview under the old regime, well then you're grandfathered through those hurdles already! Way to go!

That said, it would probably still take a couple of lawsuits to compel some of the more staunchly religious hospitals to recognize these new-fangled "domestic union contracts" as legit. But they are just as likely to deny medical rights to a perfectly legally "married" GLBT couple.

It's a different kind of equal footing (at the lowest rung), but it gets the job done. And it won't ruffle the feathers of those, like Sen. Díaz, who slavishly appeal to a supposedly divine etymology.

Currently, the government doesn't care if I take my marriage license and then have a Jewish, or a Catholic, or a secular ceremony (or any combination thereof), as long as the proper paperwork's in order. The government doesn't care if the person signing the license is a rabbi, a priest, a ship captain, a butcher, a baker or a candlestick-maker, again, so long as the paperwork's in order. So this method now appeals to both those crazy "Definition"-ists and the Federal Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Of course, life, the State of New York, and certainly the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations are not ideal. So with a hearty thanks, I will take what I got thus far and hope the next state down the line (hopefully California) will take on the task of redefining the social/legal contract which creates kinship as it should be.