Marcos Breton: A bad union: Restricting gay marriage

Words matter.

No matter what anyone says, the words "civil union" are not equal in any way to the word "marriage."

When you're married, you file joint tax returns. If hospitalized, your spouse can be at your bedside without question. If I died, my wife would receive my Social Security. We could live in different states or countries and our legal union would be upheld.

These are the benefits of being heterosexual, guarantees that same-sex couples in civil unions do not enjoy. We all pursue life, love and happiness – but our love and happiness are regulated by the government depending on our sexual orientation.

In 49 of 50 states – Massachusetts is the exception – same-sex couples are denied the rights of married couples no matter how deep their love.

On Tuesday, the California Supreme Court will consider the arguments of civil rights groups challenging California's ban on same-sex marriage. It's a scalding issue. Don't be surprised if the justices chicken out. They might kick the issue back to Sacramento, to the Legislature.

In statehouses, well-meaning legislators offer civil unions or domestic partner laws as a compromise for same-sex couples.

New Jersey passed a much-publicized civil union law in 2006. "It was supposed to give the equivalent of marriage to same-sex couples," wrote the Philadelphia Inquirer last week. "But companies whose benefits plans are regulated by federal rules, rather than state law, overwhelmingly are refusing to provide health insurance to employees' same-sex partners."

Lawrence C. Levine, a professor at McGeorge School of Law, said California's domestic partner laws are better than most – but they still aren't equal.

"On the one hand, we've been so generous. On the other, we are groping to prevent them from owning a word," Levine said. "Our culture knows what marriage is. To call it a domestic partnership makes it seem so cold, so clinical. It makes it into something different."

People of faith often cite religious or conservative values when opposing same-sex marriage.

Nowhere else do we allow religion to so invasively color supposedly secular laws. And the conservative mantra for less government intervention doesn't apply here.

For a brief moment, same-sex couples were allowed to marry at San Francisco City Hall. Robert Boucher, a Sacramento lawyer, was among them. On March 3, 2004, he married the love of his life – David Baker.

"It was a gorgeous day, perfect blue skies," Boucher said on Friday. "We went up to the office for our marriage licenses and they gave us this book that gave advice about marriage. It had a picture of a bride and groom. It talked about pregnancy …"

The couple had to wait in a long line that day. "We went up the stairs and stood under this beautiful dome. All my friends were there. I looked at David and thought, 'I'm going to be with him for the rest of my life.' We faced each other, held hands and recited our wedding vows …"

Boucher cried at the memory of his wedding vows, something many of us do no matter how many years have passed. It's a milestone that adds deep poignancy to bonds that define the passage of time.

Boucher's marriage bond – like those of many others who married in San Francisco – were annulled by the courts.

"Why did they do that?" Boucher said. "It's really about the word (marriage) … People have more important things to do than worry what happens in my own home."

About the writer:

• Call The Bee's Marcos Breton at (916) 321-1096. Listen to him at 8:40 a.m. Tuesdays on NewsTalk 1530 KFBK. Back columns, www.sacbee.com/breton.