Charlie Martin provides over at “PajamasMedia” an intriguing study of what same-sex couples might encounter with and without the protection of a legally sanctioned marriage.
Charlie provides, in part:
Sometimes you hardly notice how much things have changed. Thirty-nine years and a couple of weeks ago, a series of violent confrontations between the New York City Police Department and a motley bunch of drag queens and cruising homosexual men became the first really public event in which homosexuals demanded the right to be homosexual. These confrontations became known as the Stonewall Riots after the bar on Christopher Street that had been the focus of the confrontation. Forty years ago, gay men couldn’t legally be served alcohol in New York City because they were, by definition, “disorderly”; now, in recognition of its place in the fight for equal rights for homosexuals, the Stonewall is on the National Register of Historic Places.
Of course, what does “equal rights” mean in this context? Gays can buy liquor openly now, and not just in Greenwich Village. But there are still controversies, the most significant recent one being the question of “gay marriage,” precipitated by controversial court decisions in Massachusetts and California. I don’t propose to try to go through the whole history of the question or the decisions — that could fill a hundred articles — but because of some recent blog publications, I became interested in one of the arguments against establishing a legal recognition of marriage between people of the same sex: the argument that there really is no “equal protection” issue about forbidding gay marriage, because same-sex couples can get nearly the same legal protections through existing contract law.
So, I wondered, how much would it cost to make a “marriage” using contract law instead of family law?
This is a good read. Thanks Charlie.