Likewise gays can and already love each other and they don’t need the government to help with that. Although they can and already do make lifetime commitments to each other, here the government could and should help. Gays must make their commitments without legal force and without the support of law and much of society.

In short they are asking for marriage exactly as Ms. Morse defines it and she says society can’t allow that because it would institutionalize some alternate view of marriage that she says heterosexual couples hold.

I know some reasons why she may get the impression some gays don’t share her view. These include:
1) Many blogs or articles are written as counter arguments. For example, earlier, I blogged on “Is Marriage About Procreation” and you blogged similarly. Why did we blog about this? Because Kmiec, Gallagher and numerous have blogged about how gays can’t get married because they can’t have kids and the potential for future procreation is what “marriage is fundamentally about”. We sinply responded. (Intersting tangents: Morse seems to agree with us, marriage isn’t fundamentallyabout procreation. )

2) If you read Morse, it’s clear she recognizes that heterosexual marriage is often viewed as contractual or available for it’s financial benefits. Naturally, it is recognized this way in many courts. So, court cases do focus on the contractual aspects of marriage. This does not mean the only reason people like Goodrich want to marry is for the financial or contractual aspects. They want to marry for the same reasons that Morse wanted to marry her husband. But, their lawyer judged (apparently correctly) that the financial/contractual aspects– particularly those vis-a-vis caring for their children, would work in court.

I have to say, all in all, I liked Morse’s article. I just don’t see the “magic leap” from what marriage is about to concluding that we can’t let gays get married. She provides absolutely no argument for that leap. She just bases her injunction SMM on the unexplained metaphor ” it’s the icing on the cake” of seeing marriage as a contract instead of a life long commitment. Why is it the icing on that cake? Why isn’t gays dream of lifelong commitment the icing on the cake of the real dream of marraige: that everyone should be able to find the lifeling partner and share the lifelong commitment?

They seek to secure legally the obligations they have assumed morally, and to situate their family within the social recognition and legal rights that only marriage affords.

They referred to Rob Compton helping to care for David’s Wilson ailing parents. That was not an act of “What’s in it for me?”, but rather one of “How can I help?” which Morse says is the sign of a good marriage. In fact GLAD referred repeatedly to marriage’s role within the greater community. It was being shut out of that community that was the biggest harm their clients faced from being excluded from marriage.

Likewise the Court in Goodridge explictly rejected the view that Morse claims is required to allow same-sex marriage. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote for the Court:

In a real sense, there are three partners to every civil marriage: two willing spouses and an approving State. See DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18, 31 (2002) (”Marriage is not a mere contract between two parties but a legal status from which certain rights and obligations arise”); Smith v. Smith, 171 Mass. 404, 409 (1898) (on marriage, the parties “assume[] new relations to each other and to the State”). See also French v. McAnarney, 290 Mass. 544, 546 (1935). While only the parties can mutually assent to marriage, the terms of the marriage — who may marry and what obligations, benefits, and liabilities attach to civil marriage — are set by the Commonwealth. Conversely, while only the parties can agree to end the marriage (absent the death of one of them or a marriage void ab initio), the Commonwealth defines the exit terms. See G. L. c. 208.

So I have no idea how Morse derives her ideas.

So, strangely enough, in court, and possibly in real life, SSM advocates better agree with Morse reasons for marriage than do opponents. After all, if lifelong commitment and complete sharing on oneself is what marriage is about then, people do need to be permitted to choose a partner the can commit to, and share themselves with fully.