One of the things at stake in the November election in Colorado is the meaning of the word “spouse.”
Dictionaries agree that it means “either member of a marriage in relation to the other, one’s husband or wife.”
In 1996, Congress, aware of this definition, passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). That law, signed by President Bill Clinton, declared that no state had to respect a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as “a marriage under the laws of such other state … or any right or claim arising from such a relationship.”
But that was not all. Congress went on to define the word “spouse,” declaring that for federal purposes, “spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
Most of Colorado’s congressional delegation supported the change. But that was then and this is now.
Voters this year are being asked to redefine the word “spouse” to include registered gay and lesbian partners (Referendum I) at the very same time they are being asked to pass a constitutional amendment (Amendment 43) reserving marriage for the union of one man and one woman.
Sooner or later the state will have to make up its mind.
Editorialists across the state have continued to insist there is no conflict between the two measures. It is not so. Referendum I would give gay and lesbian couples the right to form domestic partnerships that are, in important respects, identical to marriage. These couples would be allowed to adopt children as a couple and be governed by all of the terms and conditions of the state’s laws on divorce and child custody. The measure also anticipates that the formation of these partnerships would be presided over by judges or “in accordance with any mode of recognition of a domestic partnership by any religious denomination or Indian nation or tribe.”
If that doesn’t sound like marriage, what would?
Proponents of Referendum I have cleverly stayed away from any discussion of how closely a domestic partnership will resemble a marriage. They instead have prattled on about the issue of hospital visitation, end-of-life decisions and the right to automatically inherit. One website even talks about how Referendum I is needed so gay partners “can see each other in a hospital.” The notion that conscious adult homosexuals are barred from the area’s hospitals as a matter of routine is absurd. The visitation issue is just designed to keep the public debate off more urgent matters.
Proponents emphasize the ballot measure doesn’t allow them to file joint tax returns at the state or federal level nor obtain Social Security benefits from a partner so, they say, it really isn’t marriage. The reason they can’t do such things, of course, is because federal law forbids it, making it unnecessary for the ballot measure to acknowledge that obvious fact.
But what will happen if Referendum I is approved? Will it end the cultural battle over gay rights? The state’s Blue Book is about the only place one can find support for the suspicion that there will be future litigation aplenty as various couples and organizations seek to expand the rights bestowed by Referendum I.
The book says it is impossible to estimate the fiscal impact of “legal challenges” or “increases in the number and complexity of other court cases involving same-sex couples” – a reference to the fact that gay and lesbian activists continue to file lawsuits on all manner of subjects. They are especially intent upon overturning DOMA, the federal act that now protects states from having to acknowledge same-sex marriages or relationships that “are treated as a marriage.”
The proponents of Referendum I would have voters believe that it is a simple and even innocuous measure, hardly worth a second thought. It is a cynical strategy that hopefully underestimates the intelligence of the average voter.
“Spouse” and “marriage” are important words. They are linked. One can’t be redefined without redefining the other. The backers of Referendum I know that. It is time the rest of us caught on.
Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post’s editorial-page staff. His column appears on Wednesdays.
