COURSEY: In defense of all marriages

My first marriage was blown apart by mental health and substance abuse issues. My second marriage was killed by cancer.

So pardon my skepticism about the arguments being made this week in Washington, D.C., that marriage needs to be protected from the scourge of homosexuality.

Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the federal Defense of Marriage Act. What a crock. Marriage may need defending from such threats as illness, financial disaster, infidelity and indifference, but how is it threatened by the love and commitment of two people who want to spend their lives together – even if they happen to be the same gender?

On Tuesday the court took up the question of California's Proposition 8, by which the state's voters outlawed same-sex marriage in 2008. That law has since been thrown out by a federal judge and an appeals court, but proponents want it reinstated, particularly considering "society's interest in responsible procreation," according to Charles Cooper, who argued the case in favor of Prop. 8.

Really? If government had an interest in "responsible procreation" we wouldn't still be arguing about "abstinence-only" sex education and distributing condoms in schools.

Besides, who says marriage needs to be about procreation? Kids are created every day without marriage being involved. And many of them – like 12-year-old Daniel Martinez-Leffew of Santa Rosa, who was featured on Page 1 of Tuesday's Press Democrat – end up being raised by married couples who are unable to have children of their own. In Daniel's case, that couple happens to be his dad, Bryan Leffew, and his other dad, Jay Leffew.

Would Daniel (and his sister, Selena, 8) be better off if his adoptive parents were denied the same rights and opportunities of other married couples? Would "society's interests" be better protected? Would other marriages be safer?

The answer to all of the above is clearly "no."

But these questions and arguments are really beside the point, because the real issue in this debate is equality.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act affects a range of benefits to federal employees, denying same-sex couples such things as tax breaks, survivor benefits and health insurance for spouses. Defenders of DOMA say it is necessary so all employees will be treated the same no matter where they live, whether that state allows same-sex marriage or not.

That's a good idea, treating people the same. But how about instead of denying benefits to a certain "lesser" class of employees, employers provide the same benefits to everyone regardless of who they choose to marry? Isn't that the way this country is supposed to work?

As for the Proposition 8 case, court observers seem to think that the justices will rule it is not yet "ripe" enough for a Supreme Court decision. They could decide that the backers of Proposition 8 do not have standing to ask the court to overturn lower court decisions to toss out the initiative, which would leave those decisions in place.

That would allow same-sex marriages in California, but have no impact on other states, whether they allow such marriages or not. And that would disappoint those who want the court to make a broad ruling that marriage is a right guaranteed to any couple.

But that certainly wouldn't be the end of the argument. Public opinion is shifting rapidly toward acceptance of same-sex marriage, with the majority of Americans supporting the idea and even larger majorities among younger voters. Voters in more states will allow same-sex marriages in coming years, and pressure will build to end discriminatory laws in states that don't. Eventually, the issue will become so "ripe" that the Supreme Court won't be able to sidestep it.

Because the times, they are a'changing.

And there's no defense for that.

Chris Coursey's blog offers a community commentary and forum, from issues of the day to the ingredients of life in Sonoma County.