Marriage the same, gay or straight
“Sixty-two dollars?’ she asked the clerk.
She and her boyfriend, Oscar, had filled out the one-page form for their marriage license. No blood test required. Just picture ID’s and $62.
It all seemed so mundane and DMVish that it was difficult to understand the fuss when, later in the day, the same process suddenly became a media event, with cameras flashing, press conferences sprouting, lawsuits surfacing. Making history on Thursday afternoon, two days before Valentine’s Day, Mayor Gavin Newsom issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, bucking California law and jumping feet-first into a national controversy that has President Bush pushing for a constitutional amendment to keep marriage licenses out of the hands of gays and lesbians.
I’m puzzled why the government has any standing in a discussion about what is sacred and what isn’t. A marriage license is a legal document, not a sacred one. It is, to be precise, a civil union. A marriage is sacred not through any powers of the government but through the blessings of a religious institution, or through the spirituality of the marriage partners themselves.
If preserving the sanctity of marriage were truly the impetus behind Bush’s campaign to band gay marriage, he also would be championing a constitutional amendment against Elvis wedding chapels and drive-through ceremonies. He’d be calling for a ban against 20-year-olds marrying 85-year-old billionaires, and a ban against Hugh Hefner ever walking down the aisle again.
People who are offended by gay marriage have every right to believe such marriages are a sham and not recognized them as “true’ marriages. But I am truly confounded by how legalizing same-sex marriages will undermine the institution itself.
People against same-sex marriage often ask why gays and lesbians feel a need to marry anyway. If two people are committed to each other, what difference does a piece of paper make?
Good question. Outside the county clerk’s office, couples with scheduled ceremonies waited for their numbers to be called. Suzanne Rice and John Harmer listened for No. 205. Rice, 44, had never been married and shuddered at the thought of a fussy wedding. She wore a sleeveless white dress with a soft Pashmina wrap. No flowers, no photographer, no cake, no guests. She and Harmer, with whom she has been living for 18 months, got their marriage license just two days earlier.
Mostly, though, they were marrying because, Harmer said, “We love each other very much. This is what we’ve both been looking for for the better part of our lives. We’re tightly committed to each other.’
Outside on the City Hall steps, friends snapped pictures of Jennifer and Burkhard Specht, who have been together for five years. “We love each other and want to create a life together,’ said Jennifer, beaming in her sparkly white dress and strappy white heels.
In the mayor’s office, policy director Joyce Newstat, who has been in a committed relationship with another woman for years, was both excited and frustrated with the day’s history-making events. She knows we’ll look back on these days and shake our heads about why all this was such a big deal, just as kids today wonder why integration and civil rights were such a big deal.
“This (issuing of marriage licenses) is about ending discrimination,’ she said. “That’s what the whole entire thing is about. People want to get married, and the reasons for getting married are the same whether you’re straight or gay.’
(Joan Ryan is a San Francisco Chronicle columnist. Her e-mail is joanryan@sfchronicle.com.)