Right to marriage shouldn't be determined by the state

Editor,

The term "gay marriage" sets up a dichotomy that should not be present in our society. Framing the issue in terms of gay and straight leads to arguments supporting a separate but equal approach - marriage for straight couples, civil unions and domestic partnerships for gay couples. The real issue is marriage equality. Should all Americans have equal rights to marry the person they love?

Columnist Mario Hernandez is right to point out that marriage is a religious sacrament. As such, it should not be referenced in state or federal laws. The term "marriage" is used in such laws to describe a contract not just between the partners, but also between that couple and the state. The state has an interest in reducing costs associated with the well-being of individuals. When a couple takes on the responsibilities of caring for one another financially and emotionally, the state reduces the cost of caring for those individuals. And when a couple commits to caring for a child, the state is spared the associated costs of bringing up that child. These gains occur regardless of the sex of the two partners in the relationship.

In return, the state provides certain legal rights and responsibilities to support that relationship. In federal law, more than 1,000 separate benefits and obligations are determined by marital status. These laws determine rights that affect our entire lives, ranging from inheritance, Social Security benefits and hospital visitation, to the right of a spouse to arrange for the funeral of his or her loved one. All these rights are conferred automatically the second a couple marries; yet, a gay couple must spend hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars to gain even a few of these rights for themselves.

The most equitable way to deal with these contracts would be to term them all "civil unions" and remove marriage from all state and federal law. Since this would be extremely complex and costly to implement, then the best way to remedy the current situation is to grant marriage licenses to any couple that wishes to marry, regardless of gender.

The arguments against marriage equality are always framed in religious terms, yet this is not a religious issue. Churches are, and must continue to be, free to

determine who can marry. Divorced Roman Catholics, for example, cannot normally remarry in their church but are free to remarry as far as the state is concerned - just one example where religious doctrine is separate from state law. The arguments used by the religious community are themselves generally contradictory. A commonly used argument is that marriage is for procreation. So, would the religious community want to bar a woman who had ovarian cancer from marrying? How about a man who has had a vasectomy? Or a couple in its 60s?

Marriage has changed tremendously in the last 200 years. Those who say it has been an immutable bedrock of society conveniently overlook that two centuries ago, women lost their property when marrying. Marriage then was generally arranged for political or property reasons, not love. Women could not marry without their father's permission. And less than half a century ago, interracial marriage was still illegal in this country. Marriage, like our society in general, grows and changes. It is now time for true marriage equality for Americans.

Danny Lee

UNM staff