Apologies from the US to the UK

Don,

You are doing a great job of explicating precisely what I have tried to describe as the overall traditional view of "marriage" in most Western societies.  I once shared that view implicitly, and still do staunchly defend your and others' rights to hold forth traditional values.  I part company with you, most likely, on the question of whether a child is better off having healthy gay couples or singles for parents--or having unhealthy heterosexual parents or no parents at all.  Given the three options, I strongly favor gay couples or singles--and here, I will show my bias--especially lesbians.  But that stereotype is only based on my notion that in general, women make better parents than men--if you have to choose.  Not always--just usually.  As I have said, in between fending off accusations of being a recalcitrant bag of shit , many gay couples raising children agree that it is good for a boy to have a male--and a girl to have a woman as a role model. 

In my case, my mother raised me because my father left and was pretty much absent my entire life.  But I had a wonderful grandfather who modeled for me all that I think a man should be.  He had his faults, but he was just that--wonderful. 

My first boss, in 1967, was a woman.  She was six feet tall, extremely masculine in appearance and actions.  During World War II she was a ship welder and raced motorcycles.  Although we did not speak of it in those days, it was well-known that she had a lifelong female companion.  She had to be discreet, but among close friends, she hid very little.  A couple of times, when she knew I was attending law school part time, she expressed to me the wish that she could adopt--even an older child.  I cannot imagine anyone who would have been a better adoptive parent. She also mentioned that her "roommate" did not have health insurance because she did not work outside the home.  So she purchased it at pretty heavy expense, rather than being able to add her onto the policy we had at work.  This was my first experience among many later ones that convinced me of the need for civil union. 

This is without regard to my belief that States should be able to define relationships, such as marriage, of this sort on a state-by-state basis.  Not being a Christian or even particularly a traditionalist, I truly do not have much of a dog in the fight, but I do not appreciate a group--any group--pushing their agenda in such a way as to ridicule anyone who holds onto any vestige of a tradition of which the group does not approve.

A funny story about this lady---for lady she was in every important aspect of the word: One of the other guys who worked with me and for her, was a really little old guy who came up to about her elbows.  He had been on one of the first ships back into Pearl Harbor after the attack--but that's another story.  For whatever reason, he was in love with our tall, rangy, lesbian boss.  And he didn't have a clue.  One day, 5 or 6 of us were sitting around a table having coffee.  He looked up and said: A----, may I ask you a personal question?  (I gulped.) But A----- said "You may ask, but I may or may not answer."  "Well," he continued, "it just seems odd to me that a lovely, smart girl like you never got married? (I barely kept from spraying my coffee across the table."  A----- didn't bat an eyelash, but instead replied:  "Well, let's just say that Mister Right never came along."  Our co-worker then said: "Well, it just seems like such a waste."  "I assure, you, D--------," she said, "it wasn't".  I think that D------- died never having developed a clue!

So let's talk about Civil Union and Marriage in the context of A-----:

Should she and her partner have had the right to participate in Civil Union--for purposes of insurance, legal protection in case of breakup, etc?  Damned right. 

Was society ready for it at that time?  No way. 

Were the laws against homosexual behavior unconstitutional?  Tough call, but I would guess not.

Were those laws stupid and wrong?  Damned straight.

Was the denial of the right to engage in Civil Union legally unconstitutional?  Well, no matter what one imagines the Constitution to mean, the answer is "No." 

A very important question, now: Was the absence of a legal right for two women to be married hurtful to two good people in A------ and her partner?  Almost certainly.

But whether hurtful or not, was the denial of the right then--or today--to engage in same sex "marriage" unconstitutional?  No.

Is it unconstitutional to ALLOW same sex marriage?  No again.  The states have the right to define it however they choose.

But the bottom line is that, whether we call it marriage or not, and trust me--and others on this thread--the battle traditionalists may fight on this point--is all but over.  And in fact, there are many far more important ones that lie ahead--ones that interest me far more--such as whether the Constitution should mean anything to the extent that it goes against so-called "progressive" values--whether, indeed, it should still require a Constitutional Amendment to change that document or, the more convenient avenue of Executive Order signed by the paragon of correct thinking whom the majority of our countrymen and women have chosen to lead us.

(A special apology to you, Kevin--you progressive, enlightened, and oh, so very advanced Dude, for engaging in a complex dialectic that does not provide you with a simple answer--especially one you like!) 

Best regards,

Russ