E and I made promises to each other almost 3 years ago, in the presence of our friends and blessed by my pastor. We have a signed marriage certificate issued by our state. And the wedding rings we wear are constant reminders of those promises and vows. So on one level, I find it totally bizarre and am also thoroughly pissed off that our marriage’s validity is now up for debate by 9 total strangers 400 miles away, aided by a bunch of lawyers and abetted by the news media.
On another level, I am just as glued to the Supreme Court DOMA news as anyone else. And so I wanted to share a couple snippets that I’ve read in the transcripts, which have resonated with me the most:
SOLICITOR GENERAL VERRILLI: The argument here about caution is an argument that, well, we need to wait. We understand that. We take it seriously. But waiting is not a neutral act. Waiting imposes real costs in the here and now. It denies to the — to the parents who want to marry the ability to marry, and it denies to the children, ironically, the very thing that Petitioners focus on is at the heart of the marriage relationship. …. California — there are 37,000 children in same-sex families in California now. Their parents cannot marry and that has effects on them in the here and now. A stabilizing effect is not there. When they go to school, they have to, you know — they don’t have parents like everybody else’s parents. That’s a real effect, a real cost in the here and now.
M told E on our wedding day that “now you’re really my parent,” and he’s been referring to her that way ever since. He often talks about “my parents” and I can see the joy he gets from being able to say that, just like any of the other kids at school or Scouts or church. It’s not some big momentous thing; it’s the cumulative effect of all the little things, as simple as “Let me see if my parents can give me a ride to your house.”
The other quote that I deeply appreciated was the level of understanding shown in this one:
JUSTICE GINSBURG: They’re not — they’re not a question of additional benefits. I mean, they touch every aspect of life. Your partner is sick. Social Security. I mean, it’s pervasive. It’s not as though, well, there’s this little Federal sphere and it’s only a tax question. It’s — it’s — as Justice Kennedy said, 1100 statutes, and it affects every area of life. And so he was really diminishing what the State has said is marriage. You’re saying, no, State said two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.