Why Should Gays Have All the Fun?

The Defense of Marriage Act, which the House of Representatives is now considering, could prove an enormous boon for all those married folks who would like to have it both ways. You know who I mean--the people who, after a few drinks, insist on how happily married they are but just need a little time off for bad behavior. Now, thanks to the Republican conservatives in Congress, married Americans may get to philander without guilt, which could prove even more popular than gorging on fat-free fudge.

What the Defense of Marriage Act says--and you’ve got to give the Republicans a lot of credit for coming up with a great pro-family title--is that it may be possible to be married in one state but single in another. Of course, this is all theoretical, since it’s aimed at same-sex marriages that are not currently legal anywhere. But it sets a wild precedent for officially condoned hanky-panky for all.

The only reason that wannabe philanderers now have a shot at being both married and single is that the Supreme Court of Hawaii may declare gay marriages legal according to the equal rights amendment to their state’s constitution. The justices have ordered a lower court to determine if the state has a compelling interest not to recognize the marriage of two consenting adults who happen to be gay and want to share the financial, emotional and legal obligations of marriage. Well, that sort of respect for the rights of individuals could easily get out of hand, and even though a final ruling is at least two years away, in this election year, congressional Republicans felt an urgent need to act now.

Odd that House conservatives, zealously committed to preventing the federal government from intruding in our lives, would take this step. Normally, conservatives are obsessed with the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which reserves all powers not ceded to the federal government to the states or individuals.

That includes issuing marriage licenses. The Founding Fathers also stuck the “full faith and credit” clause into the Constitution, requiring states to honor one another’s procedures, including marriage licenses as well as divorce decrees. That’s how it’s been for more than 200 years, during which time Congress stayed out of the wedding chapel. But the prospect of a gay couple legally sharing health benefits, hyphenated names and bad debts was just too traumatizing for Republican conservatives. If gays can enjoy such perks, would any of us still be interested in heterosexual marriage? Thus the proposed legislation, which would allow states to invalidate a same-sex marriage licensed in another state.

But is that fair, I ask you? Should a gay or lesbian couple be allowed to have it both ways, committed and free, while heterosexuals have to live by a single standard of marital obligation? I say, if we’re going to shred the Constitution and destroy states’ rights, let’s all benefit from it. Equal protection from the law.

One hopes that some states will recognize the injustice of such blatant discrimination against heterosexuals. They could interpret the new law as setting a major precedent applying equally to all marriages, including heterosexual ones. Say you’re hitched in California, but every once in a while you get what they used to call the seven-year itch, that urge to wander. Or maybe you’re just having a spat with your spouse and you need a little space. No problem. Just get in the car and cross a state line and presto, you are instantly single again.

Surely Nevada, which has long been the leader in lowering the obstacles to divorce, will now step in and apply the marriage nullification standard to all married folks who show up in Las Vegas and declare themselves temporarily single.

The commercial possibilities are limitless. Proudly advertised “single-for-a-day” tours, including plane tickets and packaged with half a day at a first-rate hotel, could replace the sleazy motel nooner. Once Nevada passes the universal exempt-marriage law, I doubt that a single business convention would ever be held in another state.

This is going to be even better than the old days when you could fly into Nevada for a quickie divorce. Consistent with the spirit of the new law, one would get the benefits of a divorce without jeopardizing the marriage. Once again, the Republicans in Congress have proved their steadfast commitment to saving the American family from itself. And President Clinton, who has signaled that he will not oppose this bill, has again proved his steadfast commitment to getting reelected.