Changing law just delays the inevitable

"The people have spoken," read a recent letter to the editor. "It's too bad we in Connecticut never had that same opportunity to protect our families."

The writer was talking about California's Election Day passage of Proposition 8, which changed the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Connecticut is now one of two states where same-sex couples can legally marry.

What the writer leaves unsaid is what we're supposed to be protecting our families from. Being gay? People either are or they aren't, and I can't imagine anyone thinks passing a law is going to change that.

What adds to the confusion is the odd mixture of church and state when it comes to marriage in this country. It's a legal term that defines a partnership with shared rights and responsibilities. But it's also a religious rite performed in a church by a member of the clergy.

What does the first have to do with the second? If same-sex marriages are anathema to certain religions, there's an easy solution -- don't perform them. But why stop the state from authorizing them?

This is an issue where the key opinion divider isn't gender, class or, despite the results of California's vote, race. It's age. Older people, in general, don't like it. Younger people, for the most part, can't for the life of them understand what the fuss is about.

A poll earlier this year showed 68 percent of Californians ages 18 to 29 favor the idea of allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, with 25 percent opposed. Among those over 65, it was 36 percent approval and 55 percent against.

On the surface, this seems like it should fall into the libertarian don't-bother-me-I-won't-bother-you category. No one has ever been able to articulate what harm would be caused by allowing two willing participants to gain the rights and responsibilities that go with being married.

We've had our answers for the past four years. Since Massachusetts became the first state to declare such unions legal, the country has been anything but rapt with attention at the fallout, because there hasn't been any fallout. The world kept turning. The same is true of Connecticut.

The arguments against legalization fall flat. It's true such unions cannot biologically produce children. So what -- that's true for all sorts of heterosexual marriages, as well. Do we mandate fertility tests for marriage licenses? Are we going to prohibit all weddings of senior citizens?

There's the argument about the past several thousand years of human history, which have frowned upon, to say the least, such unions. As if we're supposed to use ancient Egypt as our guide-post in such matters. History also shows centuries of tolerance for slavery and the subjugation of women -- are we supposed to revert to the good old days on those, too?

It often comes down to religion. But that's not how we make laws here -- it's right there in the First Amendment. Of course, another recent survey showed only one-fourth of respondents mentioned freedom of religion when asked what rights the First Amendment guaranteed, so maybe some people need a refresher.

If it's just a question of personal discomfort, that seems an awfully thin reed on which to deny millions of people some basic rights. If no one is harmed, society carries on as usual and the world isn't consumed in a fiery apocalypse, it's hard to see what the holdup is.

If nothing else, the numbers show attitudes are changing. Young people today will be old people someday, and tomorrow's young people won't object, either. If it doesn't happen now, acceptance of gay marriage is inevitable in a generation or two. Why we have to fight about it from now until then utterly escapes me.

Hugh S. Bailey is assistant editorial page editor at the Connecticut Post. He can be reached at 203-330-6233 or via e-mail at hbailey@ctpost.com.