On election night, I was less anxious about who would become president than about whether a certain little girl could marry her princess.
I'm talking about the little Latina girl in the California "Yes on 8" commercials, who comes home from school to tell her mommy about a fairy tale in which a prince marries another prince.
"And I can marry a princess!" she cheerfully announces, prompting a worried look from her mother and a voiceover in which a law professor warns that if gay marriage isn't stopped, parental rights will be trampled.
Statistically speaking, the chances that she'll want to marry a princess are low. In any case, reading the "wrong" fairy tales won't alter her sexual orientation. If books had that sort of influence, every Cinderella would grow up to desire a Prince Charming and vice-versa.
In the real world, some Cinderellas fall in love with other Cinderellas; some princes fall in love with other princes. In California, they may be allowed to live happily ever after, but they won't (for the time being) be allowed to get married. Prop. 8 passed 52-48%, after a $74 million battle. (A similar measure passed in Arizona, and Florida voted to prohibit not just same-sex marriage but also civil unions and domestic partnerships.)
I say "for the time being" because nobody expects this to be the end of the story. California same-sex couples will continue to receive the statewide legal incidents of marriage via domestic partnerships. Meanwhile, other states, mainly along the coasts, will recognize same-sex couples: some with domestic partnerships, some with civil unions, and a few with outright marriage.
Eventually, this hodgepodge will prove legally unwieldy, or socially inconvenient, or morally embarrassing-probably all of the above-and California will revisit the marriage question. If trends continue, marriage equality will someday win the day.
In the meantime, what difference does it make if princes and princes can only have "domestic partnerships" but not marriage?
It makes a difference in two important ways. The first is legal: because of this amendment, a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts (for example) will have absolutely no legal standing when traveling through California. The text is clear: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."
Since our Massachusetts couple has marriage, and not "domestic partnership," the Golden State would treat them as nothing more than roommates-which could prove devastating in an emergency situation.
As the law professor intones in that "Yes on 8" commercial: "Think it can't happen? It's already happening." The hodgepodge of legal statuses for same-sex couples has proven a legal nightmare for those who travel or relocate.
The second difference is less tangible but just as powerful: the cultural significance of marriage.
Here we saw a fundamental tension in the "Yes on 8" message. On the one hand, they argued that since gays had "all the rights" of marriage, there was no reason to demand the word itself. On the other hand, their tenacious fight to keep the word exclusive attests to its significance.
Because, you see, princesses don't dream about someday "domestically partnering with" the person they fall in love with. They dream about marrying him-or, in a minority of cases, HER.
To that minority, 52% of California voters sent a discriminatory message: you are not good enough for marriage. Your relationships-no matter how loving, how committed, how exemplary-are not "real" marriage.
One thing that opponents and supporters of Prop. 8 agree on: "real" marriage transcends state recognition of it. And that's another reason why this debate will continue. Because it's not just a debate about what California should or should not legally recognize. It's also about what sort of relationships are morally valuable, and why.
Notably, same-sex relationships were virtually invisible in the "No on 8" campaign. I assume that's because campaign research showed that images of gay couples don't resonate with undecided voters.
Maybe that's true in the short run. But in the long run, people are far more likely to support gay rights when they know gay people and see the palpable ways in which marriage matters to us.
Moving forward, then, we gay and lesbian citizens need to tell our stories. We need to show that gays, like everyone else, want someone to have and to hold, for better or for worse. We need to show that when we find such relationships, it's a good thing-not just for us but for the community at large.
We need to explain that we are not interested in confusing children, or in forcing princesses on little girls who don't want them. But we also need to show that girls who grow up to want princesses deserve to live happily ever after, too.
If trends continue, we will someday make that case-in time for that little girl to marry whomever she chooses.
3 Comments for “Happily Ever After, Delayed”
posted by Ashpenaz on
Civil unions are only as second-class as we make them. Gays could see civil unions as a chance to form a new kind of relationship which addresses all that adultery and hypocrisy we see in “breeder marriage.” We could make civil unions the hallmark of lifelong, sexual exclusivity. We could be more faithful, more stable, and more nurturing than straight couples.
Gays need to admit that heterosexual marriage really does come with a different set of responsibilities than gay relationships, not the least of which is a natural openness to procreation. That doesn’t make either better or worse–but it does mean we can use different words and still have equal rights. We don’t need the word “marriage” to be faithful and stable. And if people see civil unions as second-class, let’s be so good at it that they have to eat their words. Let’s make civil unions such a good example of how two people can love each other that straights will try to change state laws so they can have civil unions, too.
posted by S on
Ashpenaz, you miss the point. Corvino is ruminating about what has happened and the way forward. Distinctions between marriage and civil unions are not really at issue in this article. Though he makes a good point about the potential legal nightmare of different states handling the issue different ways.
posted by Pat on
I haven’t seen the commercial myself, but it’s almost as if the commercial could have been used by the “No on 8” proponents. As John points out, we want all our children to grow up thinking they have the choice of marrying either a prince or a princess, and not forced to feel that they have to marry someone of the opposite (or same sex) if they don’t have the sexual orientation for that. And what about parental rights? Nobody wants to strip them of their rights, but obviously there are limits. Nobody believes that parents have the right to abuse children physically or emotionally. Parents excoriating their children for being gay can constitute emotional abuse. And even if one argues it is not abuse, it is clearly behavior that should be discouraged. On the other hand, parents should encourage all children, gay or straight, to become responsible adults, and teach them that they can all marry that special someone. Not just the straight ones. And we certainly shouldn’t encourage gay children to grow up and marry someone of the opposite sex any more than we should encourage straight children to grow up and marry someone of the same sex.
So back to the commercial, what is it the law professor would want the parents to say to the child? Is it, “No sweetie, you cannot marry the princess, but you can have a lovely domestic partnership. Your sister, on the other hand, may marry her prince.” “But mommy, I want it to be a marriage.” “No, you can’t. That words reserved only for your sister, but your special, so you can have a domestic partnership. Otherwise, my rights will be trampled on.” “But mommy, does that mean you want my sister to also have a domestic partnership.” “Of course not, I want her to get married to her prince, silly. I wouldn’t let her only have a domestic partnership with a man.” “Well, at least I can have a nice, big ceremony like my sister.” “Don’t count on it, sweetie, unless you change your mind and want to marry a prince.”
Now most people would feel sorry for this little girl. But yet, most gay persons haven’t had it this good growing up. Do we really want second class citizenship ingrained into our gay children growing up? Yes, civil unions or domestic partnerships are something. At least it gives gay children now from being felt as third class citizens. That’s a step up. But as John said, at some point, there’s going to be a lot of legal wrangling as we have more and more states accepting marriage and civil unions.