Across the country the buzz on gay marriage is fast becoming a sonic vibration — with the Massachusetts Supreme Court on the precipice of handing down a ruling on whether or not to allow gay couples in that state the right to marry. In California, AB 205 seems to be the cause of just such rumblings. If passed, the legislation would provide same-sex couples nearly all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage at the state level. In anticipation of the bill’s passage, gays all over the state are wondering, “Is it really true that we are finally going to have nearly identical legal rights and responsibilities in regard to our long-term, committed relationships?”

Yes. The possibility is nearing.

But as California prepares to take this awesome step forward to further GLBT rights, is it really what the community wants? Is the GLBT community looking to imitate heterosexual marriage, thus wedging themselves into a flawed institution? Or is a separate, fresh, culturally unique institution better?

Is it possible to pave a rainbow road to the altar?

From a historically Western standpoint, marriage was an institution created to produce children. The Bible says God gave Eve to Adam, telling them to, “fill the earth and subdue it” — namely, to procreate for the survival of the species. However, nowhere in the scriptures was there any mention of love between them.

This thought process also existed during the Greco-Roman era, when the marriage bond was seen as a means to make political, social and financial alliances between families. It sought to further property rights and wealth, not to cater to romanticism — that was left to the poets.

And yet there is some evidence that perhaps ancient Greek men did “marry” each other —although this debate has yet to be won. According to James Boswell’s book, Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, adelphopoiesis was an ancient Greek ceremony that bound two men together for the rest of their lives. Before an audience and a priest, the two men repeated vows to forever care for each other. They exchanged rings and tokens. After the ceremony there was a celebratory feast. Some argue that these events were brotherhood ceremonies. Others see it as proof of premodern gay marriage.

China also has a history of gay unions. According to a study done by Tsung-Yi Lin, a Chinese historian, as China became industrialized many women began to view marriage as shameful. They chose to work in factories rather than be bound within a dominating, patriarchal marriage. Groups of like-minded women entered into non-marriage pacts, agreeing to support and satisfy all of each other’s needs.

During the 1930s in West Africa, Melville J. Herskovits recorded that wealthy, barren women would often marry other women to produce offspring by way of a surrogate father. The wealthy woman would then be thought of as the “husband” in the relationship, taking legal possession of any offspring produced by her “wife.” The biological father was considered as having zero rights towards the child.

In 1542 an early Spanish explorer noticed a curious phenomenon practiced by the Timucua Indians: some men took berdaches, males who affected a female gender role, as their wives. These marriages were not only thought of as being some of the strongest family units, but they were also seen as providing a strong service to the tribe. The reason for this exaltation stemmed from the utilitarian services the berdaches performed. Namely, they could hunt and gather, which generally were not both attributes of heterosexual female or male tribal members.

It is obvious, then, that on four continents the idea of same-sex partnership is not a new phenomenon. The institution of marriage has been concerned with procreation and has involved community sanctioned contracts; however, none of those scenarios seem to regard love as a primary interest. But in today’s society, isn’t love the precursor to marriage?

Kurt, a gay internal communications manager for an HMO, says marriage is about more than just love. “I think you can be in love with someone and not necessarily want to marry them,” he says. “The word marriage — just like when you work in a restaurant and you ‘marry’ the ketchups at the end of the shift — is that you take two separate entities and merge them into one being. It’s bigger than love, above legality, and more than acceptance. It’s proclaiming to those around you, I have now found the missing puzzle piece to my soul.”

At Cheers bar in University Heights, Matt Paul gives his thoughts on the issue. “I think the reasons for marriage are different for each couple. I think it just depends on the people involved. In my opinion, it doesn’t really matter what the reason for marriage is — love, citizenship, money, pregnancy, convenience — it’s up to the individuals involved. What right does the government have to limit the choice of marriage by two consenting adults based on gender?”

In the North Park offices of the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), Reverend Houston Burnside explains his take on same-sex marriage. “The idea that marriage is a way of people forming a loving family unit is not something debatable,” Burnside says. “Everyone should be entitled to that right.

“I think sometimes people who argue against marriage for gays and lesbians use notions and ideas that are not in line with where we are today in society,” says Burnside. “Their rationale flies in the face of change and progression, and is not unlike the resistance that women encountered when they fought for the right to vote. In this country we pride ourselves on egalitarian notions of freedom and justice for all, and we’ve come a long way, but we still have a long way to go. I think the freedom for GLBT people to marry is just one of those issues.”

Over the years, Burnside says he’s definitely seen the GLBT community become increasingly accepted into the larger populace. “I receive very little resistance [from the non-GLBT community] regarding what we do here at MCC,” he explains. “I think those people that have needed to express hatred or anger towards those things which they don’t understand, like homosexuality, are quickly becoming more and more muted by virtue of society’s progression and education. Many people are beginning to understand that GLBT people are members of every family and every community and, because of that, they deserve rights and respect.”

Steve Hansen, a straight, married IT manager, grew up in a “bible-thumping” religion, where he was taught that all homosexuality was wrong. “When you simply call it ‘marriage’ I get jittery and uncomfortable with the idea,” he says, “just from my own notions of the historical and religious background behind marriage. I’m a little afraid that if gays and lesbians are given the right to simply ‘marry’ then private churches — ones that receive no public funds — that don’t want to perform gay marriage ceremonies may be considered to be breaking the law. Private institutions, just like individuals, should never be forced to do or not do, or condone or not condone, anything that they don’t want to. The right to be culturally different from each other is what constructs our U.S. melting pot.

“But if we allow gays and lesbians a ‘civil marriage’ or a ‘civil union’ I’m okay with that, and agree that the gay community should have that right available to them,” Hansen adds.

“I believe that any two people who are willing to take on the responsibility and commitment of caring for another person for better or for worse — financially, emotionally, and physically — should be allowed to do it. Marriage takes a burden off of society, because it makes one person responsible for another. It helps the greater good.”

Though some individual attitudes are changing on the subject of gay marriage, the archaic ones still exist. William Rangel, a heterosexual San Diego native, claims, “Gay marriages will ruin healthcare, because health benefits will be extended to high risk partners, and it will degrade family values and the traditional family unit.”

Of course, Rangel isn’t the only Californian that feels this way. Assemblymember Dennis Mountjoy (R-Monrovia) is on record as stating, “AB 205 sets up a dangerous role model for children — it tells them marriage doesn’t matter in California.”

The California Alliance for Pride and Equality (CAPE) reports that there are at least 400,000 same-sex couples in California. It can be assumed that many of these couples have children. Is the denial of the right of a legally sanctioned institution between two committed and loving GLBT partners what William and Mountjoy are looking for? Perhaps. However, whatever validity their arguments may hold is waning in the light of Canada’s recent recognition of same-sex marriages and the pending passage of AB 205.

In 1999 the state of California established a Registry of Domestic Partnership for same-sex couples and heterosexual couples over the age of 62. At its onset the registry had virtually no legal rights, protections or benefits associated with it. When AB 25 passed in 2001, it gave domestic partners 14 protections under the law, including rights to hospital visitation, medical decision-making, legal and financial decision-making, and the ability to use one’s sick leave to care for an ill partner. These 14 legal rights, however, pale in comparison to the hundreds of legal provisions granted to legally married heterosexual couples at the state level. In an attempt to further expand the legal position of same-sex couples, Assemblymember Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles) drafted AB 205.

“Essentially AB 205 will give same-sex couples similar rights to those provided to heterosexual married couples within the state of California,” explains AJ Davis-DeFeo, The Center’s public policy director and the San Diego chapter head of Marriage Equality California. “It will be a separate institution and, as we know, separate is never equal. It’s not a marriage, but it is access to necessary legal protections. Responsibilities are involved as well, such as sharing debt.

“The problem is,” Davis-DeFeo continues, “once a couple leaves the state of California, the legality of the domestic partnership means nothing. So if my partner and I get into an accident while vacationing in Arizona, chances are I’m not going to be able to visit her in the hospital or make medical decisions for her, because our California domestic partnership doesn’t have any bearing in another state.”

AB 205 is currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee. “After it goes through there, the Senate will vote on it,” explains De-Feo. “After that it will go to the governor’s desk to get signed or vetoed. We have a couple of more hurdles to climb, but I’m optimistic that it will be voted on favorably.”

Activists like Davis-DeFeo aren’t the only ones anticipating the prospect of having AB 205 pass. One family and adoption attorney, Leigh Kretzschmar, seems to be excited at the prospect.

Sitting in her Banker’s Hill office, Kretzschmar explains, “AB 205 appears to be designed to be expansive and comprehensive. It’s perhaps one of the first opportunities gay and lesbian couples will have to get a legal picture of their relationship as they are walking into it, as heterosexuals currently have.

“Nobody wants to enter a new relationship thinking about what they need to do to protect themselves from a long-term legal perspective. What they want to think about is their adrenaline rush from being in love. However, because an LGBT relationship currently has very little legal structure or boundaries, it is extremely difficult to understand its rights and responsibilities,” Kretzschmar continues. “What we’re left with when a gay or lesbian couple seeks to dissolve their marriage is a couple that has been together for five, 10, or 20 years who are trying to recreate their initial agreement based on theirs’ and everyone else’s interpretation of what their relationship was. Inevitably it becomes a legal nightmare to unravel.”

Kretzschmar continues, “A statutory foundation for gay or lesbian relationships will make it easier for a judge to say this person is entitled to this and that person is entitled to that. The law will be written in black and white, eliminating stress at the institution and dissolution of the relationship.… From a mediation standpoint, the ability to help people dissolve their relationships without going into the courts is what we want most, because it’s cheaper and less stressful on everyone.”

When asked how he feels about gay marriage, James, an East County resident, states, “We’ve got more important things to think about in this country right now. Our economy is down, and our teachers are being cut.”

To be fair, this argument holds some clout. The economy is faltering. Perhaps weddings and expensive receptions should be at the bottom of everyone’s list, and tightening our economic belt should be at the top. However, by examining the projected fiscal results of AB 205, it appears that the bill will save the state money.

According to a study done by the Williams Project, a division of the UCLA School of Law and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, “AB 205 will have a positive net impact on California’s budget of at least $8.1 to $10.6 million each year.”

The Williams Project website continues, “This is because the legislation will decrease the number of individuals eligible for means-tested state benefit programs, saving the state money.”

What this study indicates is that because domestic partners would now be considered partners financially, just like heterosexual married couples, they might be bumped into higher tax brackets, making them ineligible for state-funded aid programs. The funds saved from individual aid would then become available for other things, such as education.

Obviously, for some couples this change would be a detriment. Currently many single people shudder at the thought of marriage, because they are afraid of losing their large tax returns. Others don’t want a legally combined income for fear of losing their college grant money. Mothers are afraid to lose state-funded healthcare for their children. The scenarios of how this savings might be detrimental to individuals are bleak. Honestly, what rational person would want to marry and lose their government assistance?

But how farsighted is that bleakness? If domestic partnership began to be recognized as an equal civil institution to marriage, spousal and child benefits could be further expanded, tax breaks would come into the picture for same-sex couples and those who could now afford to buy homes because of their combined income. Additionally, the dissolution of these partnerships could be settled outside the courts, saving taxpayers money.

As a professional photographer, Stan Lawrence has been photographing gay weddings for the last eight years. “When I joined the GSDBA it was kind of a natural thing,” states the Coronado native. “The ceremonies are really a lot of fun,” he says, pulling up digital photos on his laptop.

“First of all, there are no real roles or stereotypes behind them. Sometimes photographers try to put one person in the bride role and the other in the role of the groom, and that’s just not the way it works. With gay couples you have to see each one as the unique unit that they are, and then photograph them how they relate to each other — not by how you think they relate. Every ceremony is different.” Lawrence clicks on a photo of Karla and Joanne cutting their cake, both wearing silky but simple sheath dresses.

He continues, “Most gay people have had such a fight to be who they are, that when they finally reach the point of finding that one special love and are able to profess that love openly to the world, their lives burst open in joy. The receptions are explosions of ecstatic [dis]inhibition, because they’ve worked so hard to get there.”

Upon further examination of Lawrence’s photos, this statement seems true. A vibration can almost be felt emanating from the smiles of the brides, grooms and elated guests.

Cartoonist Earl Storm and network designer Ernie Elliott are one gay San Diego couple who cautiously worked their way to the altar. “We met online,” Storm declares with a grin. “We are one of those couples. But we didn’t rush into anything. We chatted for several months before we actually had our first date. After a year and a half, we shacked up,” he laughs. “We were living in sin.

“You’ve got to get to know someone before you jump into a real lifetime commitment,” Elliott adds. “After another year and a half, when we knew we were compatible, we got married.”

When asked if they refer to their ceremony as a marriage, Elliott replies succinctly, “we interchanged the term ‘commitment ceremony’ and ‘marriage’ for quite a while. At the time, we didn’t like the negative publicity associated with the term ‘marriage.’

“Yeah, so many married couples have trashed the concept behind marriage that it’s become a flawed institution,” says Storm. “Just look at the divorce rate. Not that gay couples don’t break up all the time too, but we’re not even given the chance to try to uphold the sanctity of the union. It’s also the fact that two complete strangers can get married by Elvis in a drive-thru in Vegas, while two people who have loved each other for years still can’t get married or have all the benefits that go along with it because of what they do in their private bedroom.

“It seems like they have put such sacred [meaning behind] the word ‘marriage’ and yet have a history of taking what it means in vain,” says Elliott. “I liked the idea of a civil union because it gave us something unique.”

Storm and Elliott held their ceremony at the Top of the Park in Hillcrest. Flipping through a standard wedding album, photos depict the handsome duo walking down the aisle wearing black tuxes and carrying small blue and purple bouquets. The arch above Reverend Kathy Hearn is decorated with a matching floral arrangement.

“Because I’m an avid Wizard of Oz fan, we had touches of Oz throughout the ceremony,” Storm says. “Here’s a flower arrangement depicting the yellow brick road, the poppies along the side, and the Emerald City at the end. We also walked down the aisle to ‘Somewhere Over the Rainbow.’”

Next comes a photo of Storm and his partner breaking a glass at the altar — a Jewish tradition. “Neither of us are Jewish,” Elliot says. “We just liked the tradition and wanted to include it in our ceremony.”

As I leave Storm and Elliot’s “Southcrest” apartment, I ponder the individuality of their relationship and ceremony. It becomes apparent that the GLBT community is fusing various cultural traditions, thus establishing their own bar for their committed, long-term relationships — surely something to be proud of.

This past Sunday, July 27, gay and lesbian couples gathered for a mass commitment ceremony at the annual Pride festival in Balboa Park. Couples, singles, friends and families dotted the grassy knoll surrounding the main stage, anxiously awaiting the two o’clock event.

With calm smiles and dressed smartly in black tuxes, Tucson residents April Moss and Cindy Froh waited for the ceremony to begin. “We decided to do the ceremony last week since we were already coming to San Diego for Pride,” Moss says.

Froh adds, “I know it sounds rushed, but it really wasn’t. We’ve been together for seven years, and have been toying with having the ceremony at our New Mexico home just after it’s snowed. But predicting the weather is difficult out there — unlike here.

“I’m a little nervous to see so many young couples here, because I’m afraid they might be rushing blindly into a big commitment,” Froh continues. “We are taking this ceremony extremely seriously. Even if it’s not recognized by Arizona’s government, it will be recognized by our family and close friends.”

Moss adds, “My two daughters, 16 and 20, consider Cindy one of their parents … and so do her friends. The times we live in now aren’t like when I grew up. It used to be that women couldn’t even get pregnant outside of wedlock without being frowned upon. If they came out of the closet it was even worse.

“I’m hoping that the heterosexual world will start to recognize that the only difference between us and them is the shell on the outside. The struggles our couples currently endure are no different than those that interracial couples had to go through 50 years ago. I’d like for society to accept us as the individuals we are and for what unique qualities we bring to the table. I want them to recognize that we’re out there, and somehow or another, in everybody’s life or family.”

Full of nervous energy, Cheryl and Ruth, a happy couple of five years who met in recovery, flit joyously between their friends and family, all of whom have come to Pride to see the two get “married.”

“We just registered as domestic partners, and now we’re going go get married,” Ruth says, nodding toward the domestic partnership registry booth. “There is nothing in the world that could have made us happier than this.”

Cheryl then pulls out a simple gold and silver band from her gauzy white dress. Ruth follows her lead, pulling an identical ring from the pocket of her gray checked blouse. “This is our day. It doesn’t matter to us that our marriage isn’t going to be recognized as a real marriage. All we care about is that we have each other. That’s enough for us.”

MCC has been performing Pride’s commitment ceremony since 1999. This year the open and affirming church partnered with Dignity of San Diego, a congregation for GLBT Catholics, in the hopes of expanding the ceremony to encompass a wider variety of faiths, says Rev. Burnside.

As the two o’clock hour arrived, MCC’s Minister of Congregation Life, Kaki Johnson, invited the participating couples to the foot of the stage. Twenty-seven couples of all shapes, sizes, colors and genders stood proudly arm in arm, professing openly to the world their love and commitment for each other.

When Rev. Burnside concluded a prayer blessing, one tearful lesbian couple dropped to the ground in an embrace. Another gay male couple in cut-off shorts squeezed against each other like a wine press, while an audience member dabbed her eye with a tissue.

After the ceremony there was a reception complete with cake-in-the-face action, friends and photographers snapping photos, ogles and awe at exchanged rings, and endless congratulatory remarks. If these folks didn’t just pave a rainbow road to the altar, then who among us knows the meaning of the word “marriage?” Sign me up!

If you and your partner are feeling ready to take the plunge into domestic partner bliss, there are a few steps you’ll need to take to make your relationship official.

First, pick up a Declaration of Domestic Partnership form directly from The Center’s offices at 3909 Centre St. or download a copy from their website at www.thecentersd.org.

Next, be sure that you and your partner fit the criteria to make you eligible to register. You must live together, agree to share joint expenses for each other, and both be over the age of 18 and not currently registered as a domestic partner to another individual.

If you fit all the criteria, bring state-issued identification and the form to a notary public to have your declaration notarized.

Send the notarized form and a $10 check made out to the California Secretary of State off to Sacramento, where it will be processed, filed, and a copy returned to you. That’s it! You and your sweetheart are officially domestic partners.

If you are thinking about having a commitment, holy union, or marriage ceremony, look no further than the GSDBA directory. Several open and affirming churches are listed, and will work with you and your partner to develop a ceremony with which you are both comfortable. There are also listings for photographers, formal wear shops, caterers, florists, and travel agents to help you dress, decorate, and record your reception, and then fly away to a dreamy honeymoon hideaway.

What happens if your domestic partnership sours like fine red wine left uncorked too long? The Center also has copies of the Notice of Termination of Domestic Partnership form. Only one partner needs to sign this document to dissolve the partnership. It, likewise, must be notarized and sent to the Secretary of State. There is no fee associated with a termination.