Review of Tying the Knot (2004) by Private U — 02 Oct 2004

What with all the brouhaha about a possible constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage, "Tying the Knot" is a very timely documentary. Though most discussions of gay marriage seem to focus on the equal rights aspect of it or the desire for societal recognition, this film addresses mainly the legal and financial considerations.

According to this film, there are over 1000 federal benefits which are conferred upon married couples in the United States. These include Social Security benefits, automatic inheritance without a will, and legal residency for partners from other countries. I can only assume that once you get down into the 8 or 900's they start to get pretty lame. Rent four tuxedoes and the groom's is free. Free bottle of Asti Spumante when you reserve the honeymoon suite. Come to the Olive Garden for your wedding anniversary and dessert is on us.

But still. Lame as they may be, if male/female couples can reap the so-called benefits of being legally married, the filmmakers argue, then it's discriminatory to prevent same-sex couples from doing the same.

The film focuses on two long-term gay couples who got majorly screwed by not being married. Mickie and Lois were both cops on the St. Petersburg, FL police force when Lois was killed in the line of duty. Though they were as "married" as they could be, having taken part in a commitment ceremony 13 years earlier, Mickie was still denied surviving spouse pension benefits.

Middle-aged country-boy Sam is an Oklahoma rancher who lived and worked with his partner, Earl, for 22 years. Even though Earl willed the ranch to Sam when he died, an estranged cousin contested the will on a technicality and won, thus leaving Sam penniless.

Clearly, in both of these cases, the surviving "spouse" would now be financially better off if the couples had been legally married. Of course, Sam would be just fine anyway if Earl had gotten the will drawn up properly.

Although I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry and that it's only a matter of time before that becomes the reality, I think this movie's financially-based argument misses the mark somewhat. In trying to prove why it's unfair that gay couples can't get married, it seems to be arguing more broadly that, for purely financial reasons, ALL committed couples should get married.

If Mickie and Lois and Sam and Earl had been unmarried heterosexual couples, the situation would be exactly the same. One can only assume that when same-sex couples are some day allowed to marry, many of the Earls and Sams of the world [color=black][font=Tahoma]will choose not to, just as many of their straight counterparts choose not to today. And those who do choose to marry will likely cite reasons such as "love" and "commitment", rather than "surviving spouse benefits".[/font][/color].

[color=black][font=Tahoma]Although I doubt that legal benefits are the main reason that most gay couples want the right to marry, this film is not completely without merit. It does a very good job of sympathetically portraying its subjects in such a way that even right-wing Christians should be able to empathize. Not that any of them will ever actually see it. At the show I attended, I might have been the only straight person in the whole audience. As the credits rolled, the sparse crowd burst into applause. Yet another case of preaching to the choir.[/font][/color].