wo weddings this summer, his sister and my sister. We, of course, attended and are genuinely happy that our sisters have found someone they love and who makes them happy. But lately, I find myself even more uncomfortable attending weddings, and unsupportive of marriage, than ever before.

I've actually given marriage a lot of thought over the years. I wrote an article on the topic about six years ago, polling my friends about their thoughts, talking to people who had been married and those who consciously chose not to wed. And I think I have a pretty good understanding of the most common reasons why people choose to get married in this culture. For many (most) people, marriage is a logical step in a truly committed relationship (heterosexual, that is). For some, marriage is a moral imperative--couples cannot live together in sin, no sex before marriage--now that's an incentive. For others, a married relationship is essential to create a stable environment for the raising of children and marriage protects a relationship against forces that might try to break it up--external forces like seduction, internal forces like temptation.

And after I analyzed all of these reasons, I realized they didn't really apply to me. Since Vince and I can't legally get married, and neither of us attend a church or subscribe to any particular religion, let alone a religion that would perform a substitute "commitment" ceremony, the prospects of a pseudo-wedding are not very large. And we don't have kids, and although children are not completely out of the question, we're not likely to have them accidentally. The only time marriage or a marriage substitute has come up for us has been for legal reasons--when we wrote up our wills and when we bought our home. Having the extra protection afforded to heterosexual couples in state-sanctioned relationships would be nice for the extra financial security it would provide.

As "domestic partners," Vince and I do enjoy some legally-recognized benefits. Vince's company offers fairly decent medical coverage to unmarried partners of its employees, for which we had to sign a form testifying to the nature of our relationship and how long we had lived together. And California has joint property laws that make it fairly easy and secure for unmarried partners to purchase real estate together. We are also eligible to sign up with the city of San Francisco as domestic partners, but, as I understand it, the only benefit would be hospital visitation rights and our names being placed in an official registry--whoopee!

But not all is well with being a gay couple in America. The American Southern Baptists voted to boycott Disney for its support of domestic partner benefits, among other policies that treat gay people the same as heterosexuals. And in Hawaii, efforts continue to thwart the legalization of gay marriage, even after the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled that there was no compelling constitutional reason to disallow such partnerships.

Every once in a while, I am appalled when a straight person asks me, sincerely, whether Vince and I are married. They seem surprised when I tell them we can't--it's illegal. Some times these straight people mention Hawaii. Then I shake my head and say, no, gay marriage is not legal, even in Hawaii. In fact, it is only legal in one or two countries in Europe, while a couple of other European countries have "partnerships" that are legal equivalents of marriage but just aren't called marriage.

Hawaii 98

Discussion of Hawaii and the likelihood of legalized marriage continues to be debated in the gay and lesbian community, though in my experience, I don't think many are passionately following the issue. I think the reason for this cautious pessimism is because of the huge disappointment that followed Bill Clinton's attempt to end anti-gay discrimination in the military and the great lengths the political Right and Left went to make sure that didn't happen. And no one came to our defense. While each attempt by anti-gay activists in Hawaii has thus far failed, the estimated date for actual legalization of same-gender marriage is always being delayed and never seems to get closer than 9 to 12 months away.

For those of you who have not been following, in May 1993, the Hawaii State Supreme Court ruled that the state's refusal to grant marriage licenses to three same-gender couples appeared to violate the state's constitutional guarantee of equal protection and directed the state government to show a "compelling state interest" for discrimination. Both sides of the argument agreed that it seemed unlikely that the State would succeed in presenting a compelling argument, since the Supreme Court had already eliminated religious and family protection concerns. As predicted, the State eventually did fail to make a convincing argument and the Hawaii Supreme Court is moving forward with allowing for the legalization. As a result, conservatives have attempted other techniques to delay and eventually nullify the eventuality: threatening boycotts of Hawaii, passing new laws, recalling judges, all of which have failed.

As I understand it, their last best chance is to change the Hawaiian constitution in November of 1998, a drastic attempt to codify discrimination. In the mean time, they have managed to convince the court to postpone actually legalizing gay marriage until many other issues are resolved, but the court says they have run out of time and options. Unless something changes, gay marriage could be legal early next year.

So, in 1998 gay marriage may be legal in Hawaii, though it may last only a few months. But I'm not counting on anything. People hate us (gays and lesbians, that is), and they will go to more and more unbelievable lengths to stop us from marrying. Even Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act that allows states to not recognize gay marriage, even though, as legal contracts, every other marriage must be recognized in all states, including marriages between 15-year-old girls and their 40-year-old uncles.

If that window of opportunity opens, I think you can count on a flood of gay couples going to the islands. Will Vince and I be among them? Perhaps, but I don't think it will be for the reasons I mentioned at the top of this article. I think many gay people will marry as a test to the American legal system. Law suits will explode all over the country. Gay people will be filing joint federal taxes, challenging state anti-gay marriage laws, and trying to adopt children as married couples. In fact, Vince and I were thinking of trying to be the first gay couple to file for divorce, maybe landing us a spot on Oprah.

Witch Hunts

I felt a swelling of bitterness over marriage when reading about the "witch hunts" in the military earlier this year, not against gays, but against adulterers. For once, straight people were being discriminated against for their sexual urges. With our Puritanical past, Americans have a lot invested in marriage. Gen. Joseph Ralston, who was separated from his wife, should have remained chaste but chose not to, and now finds himself ineligible for a position on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. How ridiculous! Yes, people should be faithful to each other, but, in the end, their relationship is their business. Some people might choose to have different standards for faithfulness, and it should be their right to set those standards on their own, not by arbitrary legal assignments of partnership.

I was even more appalled though, to find that many people did not see the military's standard of morality hypocritical and impossible to maintain. People were in support of rooting out honored pilots because of their off-duty sexual activity. They felt that allowing these people in the military would dilute the morality and prestige of the institution, the same argument used to keep out gays. And anti-gay forces argue that allowing gay people to marry will dilute the institution of marriage.