But they have no way at all of "ensuring" (to use Mr. Snell' s word) that they can get pension benefits or certain tax breaks unless and until their relationship is given formal state recognition. It is this quality of being locked out that is most frustrating. Benefits are intended to reward couples who proclaim th eir commitment to one another in what Thornton Wilder called "a mighty public way." Same-sex couples are looked down on because of stereotypes about promiscuity and irresponsibility, and they're--by law --prohibited from doing something that would prove the critics wrong.
I share some of Tom Slaughter's concern about the interrelationships between marriage and religion, more so after discussing the article on a nationally syndicated call-in show and having the Bible quoted to me from five different states. While it's sometimes difficult to separate religious justifications from secular ones, I think it's possible.
And I think we have some awfully good reasons to provide affirmative support for couples who are willing to take the plunge. Or to put it another way, maybe the benefits we get for recognizing relationships are worth the effort. I don't think we need to encourage people to form relationships in the first place, which history and biology both suggest they will do irrespective of what the law says or does. The hard part is usually staying together, and while neither tax breaks nor tort law will be the deciding factor for most couples, I think there's something profoundly good about a society that says we not only value commitment in the abstract, but are willing to put our money where our values are.
Some of those values are enshrined in the Constitution itself. In December, the federal Court of Appeals decidedShahar v. Bowers, mentioned in the article. While the three-judge panel disagreed on some matters, they were unanimous in holding that same-sex couples, like opposite-sex couples, have a constitutionally enforceable right to intimate association that protects them against government intrusion.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
nfl jerseys|11.16.10 @ 9:44PM|#
cthyhg