A meaningful piece of paper

LOLITA HARPER

The issue of marriage has long been one that has baffled and

befuddled me. I am in awe of the concept; excited by it and yet

afraid of it.

How do people stay married for so long? How can they handle the

concept of being joined to another person -- day in and day out,

waking up to the same face every single morning -- for the rest of

their lives? How do you get through the rough times: issues of

infidelity, financial problems, addictions, differences in child

rearing, etc.?

For every time I thought that marriage was for suckers, I also

thought that those who can make a go of it deserve the utmost credit

and respect. And those who want to be stuck, er, blissfully joined

with one person for eternity and beyond, well, more power to ya, all

of ya -- white, black, gay, straight, short and tall.

And especially to Newport Beach residents Tom Peterson and Jim

Albright, who were married over Valentine’s Day weekend in San

Francisco. Congratulations.

I talked to Peterson on Thursday and asked him simply, why?

“Because that is what people who are in love and decide to make a

commitment to each other do,” he said.

And before San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome’s bold decision to

recognize same sex marriages -- not civil unions but marriage -- it

was not an option that was available to Peterson and Albright.

Sure, everybody knew they were a couple. Many elected officials

and major community players call them close personal friends and are

aware of their lifelong commitment to each other. But now these men

have the same certificate that other loving couples get to tout and

cherish -- a marriage license.

“This certificate is the evidence that the state recognized this

relationship and considers it to be equivalent to others,” Tom said.

Costa Mesa Councilwoman Libby Cowan and her domestic partner

Rebecca Chadwick said they strongly support the movement that allows

gays and lesbians to have the same access to the civil institution of

marriage as heterosexuals. I caught her at a bad time, as her

mother-in-law (well, I guess it’s not exactly law yet) had just

passed away and her own mother was also in failing health. It was a

sullen time in the Cowan-Chadwick house, but she shared with me

briefly, her thoughts on the issue.

“I think there is no such thing as ‘gay marriage’; it is just

marriage,” Libby said. “Rebecca and I would very much like to affirm

our relationship and have it recognized by the legal, civil

institutions in our country -- and to have the same rights and

obligations that any married couple has. With the death of Rebecca’s

parent and my parent’s illness, it becomes more and more evident that

the ability for one or the other of us to be decision-makers in the

time of family tragedy -- and issues -- is extremely important, yet

we can’t do that because it is not seen as a legal relationship.”

Now, I have to admit, this is not a subject I was thoroughly

researched on, so I went online to find for myself what the

difference between state-recognized civil unions and marriage. As far

as I can tell, civil unions provide certain benefits, such as

hospital visits to registered domestic partners (formerly only

allowed to family or spouses), certain health benefits and death

benefits to the surviving partner, that are comparable to those for

married couples but only in certain counties, such as San Francisco.

Now, as great as that may seem it still sets homosexual couples

apart, as different; separate but equal, if you will. Domestic

partners are only recognized by states that have these laws, and

their rights as a couple do not exist outside of state boundaries.

Domestic partners do not have any federal benefits, such as

immigration status or tax benefits.

Since California is one of the states that recognizes civil

unions, I have heard certain people (heterosexuals) ask, “What’s the

big deal about marriage? What is so important about a little piece of

paper?”

For the life of me, I don’t know why that question should be asked

to homosexuals only, but Costa Mesa resident Bill Turpit provided a

great answer. Turpit, who lives with his domestic partner, said he

feels a responsibility to himself, his family, his community and his

Christian faith to live his life with honesty and integrity. He has

come to learn that the best way he can be consistently true to those

values is to commit himself to a long-term monogamous relationship

with the person that he loves and respects.

“I know that my decision to enter into this lifelong mutual

relationship was made and will succeed without need for official

approval or sanctification from the state of California,” Turpit

said. “But it is my sense of basic fairness that asks why should I be

treated any differently by the state in my responsibilities to my

partner than married couples are treated? Why the same commitment and

responsibilities, but not the benefits?”

Of all the questions swirling around this argument, no one on the

con side has answered, to my satisfaction, what is so threatening

about two people devoting themselves to one another? All I can find

on all the “pro family” websites is that marriage is meant for people

of different sexes -- and that is that.

It seems that marriage, as it was designed from the beginning --

between a man usually twice as old as his teenage wife, arranged

through parents on the basis of financial standing and breeding -- is

a tad archaic.

So, now that we have moved away from this practical arrangement

designed for the benefit of procreation, we look to “true love” to

define our long-term commitments. Fine; because we can all control

who we fall in love with, right?

And once we have found our soul mates, we make it permanent with a

slip of paper. Oh, and it’s not just the piece of paper but the

lovely ceremony that celebrates the sacred union. Or it could be

punctuated by screaming “I do,” into an Elvis head in a drive-through

chapel in Las Vegas or winning a contest between 100 women to marry a

millionaire on television.

As long as it’s a man and a woman, it is “sanctimonious,” right?

Yeah, right.

All I am saying, is that with all the nilly-willy attitudes toward

marriage, with various, attention-hungry pop stars running off to

Vegas and tying the knot in a drunken stupor, only to sober up and

want out, shouldn’t we all be supporting people who are hungry to

enter into a serious commitment based on love, devotion, loyalty and

responsibility?

“As a married person, I don’t feel that the sanctity of my

marriage has been impacted by other people out there that I consider

careless and who have gotten married with little thought or

foresight,” Peterson said. “That is what they do, and it doesn’t

diminish what I have one bit. So I don’t understand why something

that I do can therefore reduce anything between anyone else. Marriage

is a solemn relationship between two people. Period.”

* LOLITA HARPER is the community forum editor. She also writes

columns Wednesdays and Fridays. She may be reached at (949) 574-4275

or by e-mail at lolita.harper@latimes.com.