Editorial
Same commitment, same set of rules

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

Same-sex couples have the same real-life problems as man-woman couples, and ought to be under the same law of marriage. As an example, consider the unfortunate case of Ann and Lee Kandu.

Ann and Lee lived as a couple since 1990 — not in some bohemian place, but in Castle Rock in southwestern Washington. They raised three children. Ann went to work each day, until she retired, and Lee stayed home to care for the kids. They had a traditional relationship, except that Ann and Lee were both women.

They were not allowed to marry in Washington, but when British Columbia gave them the opportunity, they took it. They married in Victoria on Aug. 11, 2003.

Washington generally recognizes Canadian marriages, just as Canada recognizes ours. Under Washington law, money earned after marriage belongs to both partners equally; if that money pays for a house, both partners own the house. Only Ann's name was on the title to the house, but under the law of marriage, that wouldn't matter. They would both own it.

Last October, when Ann was told she had terminal cancer, they filed for bankruptcy — as a couple. The idea was to keep an interest in the house for Lee.

Earlier this week, a federal bankruptcy judge ruled that under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Ann and Lee were single. Their marriage was not recognized.

The apparent result is that Lee may have no claim on the house. Three days before she died, Ann deeded the house to Lee, but by then the house was under control of the bankruptcy court.

Marriage matters. It matters as a symbol of cultural acceptance, which is what most of the shouting has been about. But it also matters for down-to-earth things such as the payment of a pension benefit, the right to make a medical decision, the right not to testify against a partner, or, as here, the ownership of a house.

The rules are different for people who are married. Married people have sworn a responsibility to take care of each other and the children in their custody, and the law protects that.

That protection should have been available to Ann and Lee, and should be extended to others who take the same vows.