Maine's anti-gay marriage ruling and feminism

This past Tuesday was voting day for many folks in the U.S., and of particular interest in my Facebook feed has been the decision of Maine voters to repeal a law that legalized gay marriage. According to ABC News, the law was repealed by a popular vote of 53% over 47%.

Gay marriage has been a hot topic in the U.S. for the past few years, perhaps to sway our interest from seemingly more important issues such as the two wars our country is currently engaged in or the flailing economy. However, as a civil rights issue, the right to wed whomever you want is important to feminism, and, I think, as important to our civilization as what wars we are engaged in or how poorly our economy is doing.

Did you know that 31 states in the U.S. have explicitly outlawed gay marriage? And only five legally perform them. Many states, such as New Mexico, do not have specific gender restrictions on marriage laws, which is why Sandoval County clerk Victoria Dunlap began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004. She was stopped by state attorney general Patricia Madrid soon thereafter, and the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that giving same-sex couples licenses to wed was illegal. Nevertheless, the wording of the state's laws on marriage remains the same (i.e. non-gender specific):

• "Marriage is contemplated by the law as a civil contract, for which the consent of the contracting parties, capable in law of contracting, is essential."
• "All marriages celebrated beyond the limits of this state, which are valid according to the laws of the country wherein they were celebrated or contracted, shall be likewise valid in this state, and shall have the same force as if they had been celebrated in accordance with the laws in force in this state."  (Both from Conway Greene)

This wording means it is still unclear whether marriages that are performed legally for same-sex couples in states like Iowa or Massachusetts will be recognized here in New Mexico. 

The main arguments for refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry are based more in tradition and religion than in law and social welfare. In a truly secular state, where religion had no bearing on the law and where church and state were honestly separate, "marriage" would be a ceremony ordained by the church and with no bearing on the law. The reason marriage matters in a legal sense is because of the ability of one partner to pass benefits and property on to the other. 

Because same-sex partnerships are denied true recognition under the law, gay couples are denied rights that heterosexual couples never have to worry about. For instance, this horrifying story of a lesbian couple who experienced the lack of southern hospitality at Jackson Hospital in Miami is only a reality because same-sex partnerships are not granted the same legal recognition as heterosexual ones. Can you imagine the uproar that would have taken place if a social worker had told an interracial couple that they were in a county that disapproves of interracial marriages, and therefore the husband would not be allowed to know the status of his sick wife while she was in the hospital? This couple was told exactly that, and the couple's children were not allowed to see their mother before she died. 

Studies have shown that by legalizing marriage between same-sex couples, states would increase economic incomes and providing better futures for children. Once again, the only reason gay marriage is not legally recognized is because of traditional bias and religious fervor, plain and simple.

Gay marriage is an important issue to feminism for several reasons. The most obvious is that equal civil rights for any minority group is (or should be) a goal of feminism. But a less obvious reason is that wherever religious precedents that deny rights to groups prevail, women are allowed to be demeaned and demoted. If you can argue that God doesn't approve of same-sex couples, you can argue that God doesn't approve of women being leaders. You can also argue that God doesn't approve of interracial couples, or couples from different nations, and on and on. Traditionally, the U.S. has been a racist, anti-female state, and by continuing to insist that traditions are sacred to the law, we insist on continuing to oppress people who are traditionally oppressed. There is no reason why religious tradition should impinge on the rights of the citizens of a country where church and state are supposed to be separate.

In my opinion, the best solution to this issue would be to de-legalize all marriage, and instill instead civil unions for all partnerships, whether they are opposite-sex or same-sex. Marriage is a religious issue, while property and benefits rights are legal issues. If anyone chooses to commit to one person as a couple, the law should recognize that commitment and their desire to share resources. And that is where the law's input should stop.