Marriage Protection

On Thursday, a New York state appeals court overturned a ruling made in February which would have granted the right of same-sex couples to marry in New York City.

In a dissent, Justice David Saxe said that he saw no important public interest in barring same-sex marriage and that laws that prohibit it perpetuate discrimination.

But the rest of the court said: "The legislative policy rationale is that society and government have a strong interest in fostering heterosexual marriage as the social institution that best forges a linkage between sex, procreation and child rearing."

Clearly, the reasoning is absurd. As Ezra noted yesterday, “marriage isn’t limited to the fertile, the potent, nor the child-friendly…[L]et’s not pretend that the same certificate offered to newlywed 95-year-olds is somehow an exclusive privilege of childbearing couples.” Let’s also not pretend that families headed by gay couples don’t exist, or that straight, unmarried people don’t have kids—or sex, for that matter.

Once again, the implied rationale, though never overtly stated, is more of the same that we hear in defense of the Federal Marriage Amendment, which has had a makeover and is now called the Marriage Protection Act. Heterosexual marriage is to be protected, say opponents of gay marriage, despite a dearth of evidence that ending the disparity in marriage equality would actually have any discernible negative affect on straights or their marriages.

There are, however, couples whose marriages are at increased risk.

Army researchers saw alcohol misuse rise from 13 percent among soldiers to 21 percent one year after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, underscoring the continuing stress of deployment for some troops.

In post-deployment reassessment data completed in July, researchers also saw soldiers with anger and aggression issues increase from 11 percent to 22 percent after deployment. Those planning to divorce their spouse rose from 9 percent to 15 percent after time spent in the combat zone.

A 6% increase in divorce is not insignificant. And yet, marriage proponents have been curiously silent about the effect that the war has had on marriages. Indeed, many of the anti-gay marriage activists also whole-heartedly and unquestioningly support the war and the administration’s management of it, including its provisions for returning soldiers. And many of the same Congress members who champion marriage protection—and supporting the troops—also simultaneously deny much-needed funding to the Department of Veterans Affairs, who seek to combat issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which contributes to the breakdown of military marriages—and families—upon servicemembers’ return home.

The data and other testimony about the effects of deployment stress came at a briefing called by House Democrats on Thursday to look at the issue of mental health care and resources for servicemembers…

Rep. Lane Evans, D-Ill., said he organized the briefing because he believes the military health care system still isn’t fully prepared to deal with troops with post-traumatic stress disorder. Defense Department officials estimate about 18 percent of troops in Iraq and 11 percent in Afghanistan will develop PTSD.

“We commit a serious disservice to veterans and their families if we only focus on the veteran with PTSD,” he said. “Congress must act to improve the Defense Department’s and (Department of) Veterans Affairs’ capacity to have a family-centered approach to treating it.”

Dr. Charles Figley, director of Florida State University’s Traumatology Institute, said those types of stress problems, if left untreated, can become more serious health issues like PTSD. He said more needs to be done to fund mental health care programs for the returning troops.

He also predicted thousands of veterans in dire need of mental health services — “another Katrina-type disaster as these people leave the service and flood the VA” — if more resources aren’t made available to servicemembers and their families.

Charles Flora, associate director of the office of readjustment counseling with the Department of Veterans Affairs, said he believes the department is providing adequate services to recently separated troops with stress disorders. But when pressed by Democrats about funding for the future, he noted that the VA’s mental health experts are “running at close to capacity.”

So how about it, marriage protection advocates? All I’m suggesting is that a modicum of the effort and concern you devote toward making sure gays can’t get married be redirected toward making sure soldiers have the best chance to stay married.

Conversely, you could also just admit that you don’t care nearly as much about the lives of individual soldiers as you do an abstract concept known as “the troops,” nor about protecting marriage as much as punishing gays.