HAVING CARNAL RELATIONS OR NOT SHOULD NOT MATTER
My friend Connie reminded me that in the final episode of the TV show, Boston Legal, attorney Denny Crane (William Shatner) proposes marriage to Alan Shore (James Spader), his best friend and one of the firm’s partners. They marry, not because they are homosexual, but as a way of ensuring that their property, confidential conversations and friendship are protected. Having carnal relations has nothing to do with their union. A same sex marriage that is based solely on friendship should be as acceptable as one between heterosexuals or homosexuals; otherwise it is a new form of discrimination.
In the Chicago Tribune editorial about same -sex marriages, the newspaper says, “Healthy, supportive same-sex relationships abound in Illinois, and they deserve the same civil rights the rest of us enjoy -- the right to visit a loved one in the hospital, to be granted custody of children, to inherit property.” The Sun Times editorial on the same subject says,”… it's unfair to deny same-sex couples the tax advantages, legal protections and other privileges that heterosexual couples take for granted.” Neither editorial qualifies that the same- sex people be copulating.
Since heterosexual people have sexless marriages-- the number of sexless marriages is "a grossly under reported statistic," says therapist Michele Weiner Davis, author of "The Sex-Starved Marriage"—why can’t people who are just friends marry to gain the tax benefits and other perquisites of marriage?
My sister lives in Europe and thus is not readily geographically available if I need her. When I was in the hospital last week, my friend Linda sat with me for two days in ICU, and held my hand. I had signed a paper when I checked in saying the hospital could share my health information (except how much I weigh!) with her. When Linda and I grow older, why shouldn’t we be allowed to legally marry to take advantage of making health decisions, family insurance plans, adoption, survivor pension benefits, rights involving wills, intestate succession, conservatorships and trusts, community property rights, etc? Why hasn’t there been any discussion of same-sex marriage or civil unions between just friends?
The Tribune points out that, “Only five states allow same-sex marriage. Nine others have laws recognizing civil unions or domestic partnerships that convey most or all of the rights of marriage, and six have laws that go part of the way. “But whatever one calls the same-sex unions it is presumed that the two people are sharing the same bed; what if they aren’t? Should they be allowed to marry? Do the “bedroom police” monitor if same-sex couples are doing the nasty? No. Not any more than heterosexual couples’ private lives are monitored. So why is it presumed that people are having intimate relations in order to form a more perfect union? Why can’t any two people who care about each other’s well-being get married?
Webster’s Dictionary defines “ marriage” as (1) The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law or (2) The state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.
Marriage is a social union or legal contract that creates kinship. Married people are not required by law to have sexual relations; so once again I ask, why can’t people who are just friends marry?
Illinois House Bill HB0178 is the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act. The synopsis of the bill is that it “Makes legislative findings: same-sex couples are denied equal access to civil marriage benefits; the current marriage law is discriminatory and harms same-sex couples; and there is no compelling interest or rational basis to deny same-sex couples those benefits. Provides that the Act does not interfere with any religious beliefs about marriage. Provides that the Act's purpose is to provide eligible same-sex and opposite-sex couples with the same treatment as those in a civil marriage. Provides that parties to a marriage of the same sex are included in the terms "spouse", "immediate family", "dependent", and related matters. Provides that domestic relations, probate, and family law shall apply equally to parties to a marriage of the same sex. Provides that benefits apply equally to same-sex marriages in these areas: causes of actions related to spousal status, for wrongful death, emotional distress, and loss of consortium; adoption; family leave; group insurance for State and municipal employees; accident and health insurance protections tied to former spouses and dependents; and taxes and tax deductions based on marital status. Provides that a civil marriage is prohibited between siblings or between an uncle and a nephew or an aunt and a niece. Amends the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Provides that nothing in the Act should be construed to interfere or regulate any religious practice concerning marriage and no religion is required to solemnize a marriage to which it objects. Provides that a marriage is between 2 persons (rather than, a man and a woman) licensed, solemnized, and registered under the Act.
There is no language in the bill requiring the two people joined together to have sexual relations. So to any of my friends (or good looking strangers) who currently have a good health insurance plan that allows for “spouses” to be covered, I say, “Will you marry me?”



















