SOME STATES have gone out of their way to stigmatize gay and lesbian couples, but California hasn’t been one of them. Even as state law forbade these couples to marry, it offered a similar option, domestic partnership. So when the state’s highest court overturned that ban yesterday, the issue wasn’t whether California should recognize same-sex couples, but whether it can do so while denying them the dignity of the word ‘‘marriage.’’
No, it can’t, the California Supreme Court ruled. That state will become the second, after Massachusetts, to recognize full marriage rights for gay couples. But the ruling is significant for another reason: It points out the fundamental flaw in domestic partnerships, civil unions, and other ‘‘I Can’t Believe It’s Not Marriage’’ substitutes — which, however well intended, still relegate same-sex couples to second-class status.
These measures emerged as a delicate compromise between the need to deal fairly with same-sex couples and widespread public sentiment against same-sex marriage. And to be sure, the adoption of civil unions in states such as Vermont, Connecticut, and New Hampshire was an advance over the legal indifference shown to gay couples elsewhere. Fortunately, a one-vote majority on the California court understood the ‘‘appreciable harm’’ inherent in offering rights that are only equal-ish.
From here, the debate could turn ugly. Efforts are underway to put a same-sex marriage ban in the California Constitution, and political strategists nationwide could well try to capitalize on antigay backlash in November. What’s clear, though, is that here in Massachusetts, the possibility of civil marriage has allowed thousands of committed couples to cement their lives together — without harming anyone. Same-sex couples in California and elsewhere deserve no less.
