Last week's New York high court decision rejecting marriage for same-sex couples was a stinging rebuke to the community. The four justices who issued the majority opinion are stuck in a time warp, relying on the antiquated – and false – belief that procreation is the basis for marriage. As Jenny Pizer of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund told us last week, the court basically said that it's critical to society that heterosexual relationships are held up as the model, that traditional gender roles are maintained.
The decision is an insult, not only to gay people, as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's Matt Foreman accurately noted, but also to straight people. Pizer noted that the ruling states that because heterosexuals are so irresponsible in their sexual behavior, that marriage had to be established to create a structure to manage the consequences of that behavior. "I think most straight New Yorkers would be insulted – that marriage is reduced to a discipline system," Pizer said. "The decision is insulting to heterosexual couples and it's insulting and mistaken to gay and lesbian people."
The whole argument about children whips up social conservatives, and is made while ignoring evidence to the contrary – that same-sex couples are having and raising children, and that in some states, notably California, courts have ruled decisively that children of same-sex couples must be given the same protections as children of heterosexual couples. We saw that last summer with the California Supreme Court rulings in three lesbian parenting cases – both partners in a same-sex couple are legal parents.
The legal developments in California over the past several years have helped set the framework for the most important marriage cases yet – the six consolidated cases that the state Court of Appeal heard Monday. Based on the questions asked by the three-judge panel, it appears that the justices are weighing carefully state law here and the fact that domestic partnerships are a separate, unequal mechanism for gay and lesbian couples. There is no legal reason for excluding a group – in this case same-sex couples – from civil marriage. We hope the justices see it that way, and don't fall into the procreation trap.
Tennis, anyone?
Congratulations to France's Amelie Mauresmo. The out lesbian won the women's championship at Wimbledon last Saturday, picking up another Grand Slam title. Ranked number one in the world, Mauresmo, who came out several years ago, is at the top of her form. She also is one of the few athletes to come out while still playing professionally.
"I really, definitely wanted this win today, this trophy," Mauresmo said afterwards, speaking to the crowd from Centre Court. "And I don't want anybody to talk about my nerves anymore, you know."
But watching the women's final on NBC, you wouldn't know any of that. Once again, we saw someone hiding in plain sight, though it was no fault of Mauresmo's. During World Cup play, when England was still in the contest, television cameras were all over Posh Spice, the wife of English team captain David Beckham. Last Saturday, we saw the cameras pan to Mauresmo's coach, but that was it. It was unclear if a woman sitting next to him was Mauresmo's partner, and if that was the case, NBC's announcers should have noted that. Spouses of famous athletes are shown all the time on television when they're attending a big event, it should have been no different with Mauresmo.
It's not that NBC had to make a big deal out of it, the announcers could have just casually mentioned it, just like they do with spouses of sports figures. When a straight athlete wins a title, sportscasters aren't there saying, "Oh my god, he's married, and he thanked his wife." It should be no different with a gay or lesbian sports figure.
Mainstream print media aren't much better. The San Francisco Chronicle's Bruce Jenkins, in a preview piece before the women's final, wrote about Mauresmo's previous on-court mental mistakes and her "openly gay lifestyle." Come on, Bruce, just say that she's openly gay. It's not a lifestyle, it's a life.