A lesson from the penguins

New York Times had an amusing story the other day about a cute pair of penguins in the Central Park Zoo. These penguins, Roy and Silo, have been together for six years. They are affectionate, caring, utterly devoted to each other -- and the happy parents of a healthy chick named Tango. The only anomalous part of this story is the fact that Roy and Silo are both males.\nThe article goes on to discuss homosexuality as common in the animal kingdom, and it isn't just about sex -- across a variety of species, animals engage in courtship behavior with members of the same sex, form long-term bonds, and rear young. In the case of Roy and Silo, the two appeared so desperate to have a child, going so far as to put a rock in their nest and incubate it as if it were an egg, that zookeepers gave them a fertile egg to care for. They incubated it until Tango hatched, and raised their adopted daughter until she was old enough to care for herself.\nObviously it's inappropriate to anthropomorphize penguins too much or to muse about human ethics based on the behavior of animals, but comparisons are hard to avoid. The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to believe Roy and Silo probably are more comfortable with their lifestyle as residents of the zoo than they would be if they were on the other side of the cage. Penguin families don't have to worry about health or life insurance -- the benefits of which are not shared by human same-sex partners. Automatic inheritance rights, decision-making for an incapacitated spouse, hospital visitation rights, joint credit and property rights all likewise matter little in the animal kingdom. All are denied to monogamous human couples across the country, thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act.\nThe act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and gives states the right not to recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. Attitudes towards homosexuality have changed drastically in the past eight years, and the principles behind this act have, again become a political hot topic.\nA growing culture of acceptance has become more and more apparent in the past year, from the U.S. Supreme Court declaring anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional to "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" becoming one of the most popular shows on television. The Massachusetts Supreme Court recently ruled banning same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. Many cities across the country -- including Bloomington -- cater to homosexual tourists, seeing them as a potentially profitable demographic.\nGiven this culture of acceptance, the position of many prominent politicians seems more and more perplexing. President Bush supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Sen. John Kerry and former Gov. Howard Dean both support civil unions, giving the legal benefits of marriage to homosexual couples, but avoiding the term marriage, often coming off as downright defensive about their own states' more liberal attitudes.\n The irony is while politicians are busying themselves with a semantic debate, trying to define a better term defined by a priest rather than a president, most homosexual couples are seeking, not a definition, but rights. Those who do want a marriage are going not to courthouses, but to churches that are progressive enough to perform ceremonies recognized by their faith, if not by their state.\nThe U.S. constitution is not Webster's dictionary, and an amendment is not necessary to define marriage. The constitution is, however, a guide telling us it is not right for one family to enjoy benefits possibly denied to another just as loving and stable. \nEven a penguin knows that.