20 December 2001

It was the headline story in our local newspaper recently.

The subheadline read "This marriage is already in the doghouse."

The photo is of Moxie and Gryffindor von Politzer, both wire-haired pointing griffons (that's a breed of dog, in case you aren't up on your AKC registration book).

The report of the wedding takes up half of page 4 (continued from the huge spot on page 1).

There are additional photos of the "bride" and "groom" running off into the sunset, and also a nice picture of their wedding "cake."

It's all very cute and the reporter and headline writer had a good time playing with all the "dog" references. (They did leave out the part about the bride being a bitch, though!)

In one way, the story made me smile. It was a very cute idea.

But on the other hand, it made me sad. Here we'll devote the equivalent of most of the news space on the page of a newspaper, with 3 photos and all happy talk news.

What if the couple had been Joe and Sam? Or Jane and Mary? Nobody would go awwww, and you can bet your bippie that "Don," my love letter guy, would be firing off a letter to the editor crying "perversion"

Yet you can bet that if Joe and Sam or Jane and Mary went through some sort of wedding ceremony, it would be because they loved each other and were willing to endure the kind of opprobium they are certain to get from the likes of Don, while I'll be willing to bet there's little "love" between Gryff and Moxie. For the dogs, it's all about the sex and you can be sure that if some other cute little bitch sashays by, Gryff would be on her in a minute, without a second thought about Moxie.

At the risk of repeating myself, what's so blasted wrong with two people loving each other and wanting to commit their lives to each other? Whom does it hurt? Why is it such a threat to the moral fiber of society if two people in love make a commitment to love each other for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, until death do us part?

Even if there is a moral issue involved (and it do not accept that there is), we are denying tax-paying citizens of the civil rights granted to heterosexual couples. Gay men and lesbians in love, who have commited themselves to each other in a life-long relationship are caught in somewhat of a Catch 22 situation. Society tells them they are not permitted to marry, and then the government tells them that even though they have shared their lives and their finances for 30 years, they are not permitted to claim the legal benefits due married couples because they aren't married.

Old what's her name--Darva Conger?--got all of the rights of a wife the moment she said "I do" to Rick Rockwell, a man she'd never met whom she married on a TV show.

Yet my friends Ellen and Shelly, who have shared their lives for 30 years and raised a very large family together, still are not accorded the legal rights due to a married couple.

Fallacy somewhere, I fancy!

There is a glimmer of hope, a brief spark that shines every now and then. Gay couples can now marry in the Netherlands. Lichtenstein is drafting legislation which would give same sex couples legal equality. Australia will permit permanent resident status to same sex partners from other countries. Vermont allows gay couples to form "civil unions" that provide them with a wide range of benefits previously available only to heterosexual married couples. In British Columbia and several other Canadian provinces, same-sex partners have the same rights to spousal support, guardianship, adoption, pension entitlement and medical decision-making as heterosexual couples.