The "Gay Marriage" Ruling
As some of you may already know, I'm currently spending some time in my home state of Massachusetts. Those that keep up with current events will also be aware that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that denying marriage to same sex couples violates the state constitution. Since everyone and their dog seems to have an opinion about the ruling I thought I'd ramble (or maybe rant) about it myself.
First, I would like to congratulate the four justices that made up the majority in the decision. Thank you Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall, Justice John M. Greaney, Justice Roderick L. Ireland, and Justice Judith A. Cowin for maintaining civil equality for all and subtly reinforcing the separation of Church and State.
I'd like to also extend my thanks to Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Senator, I never thought I'd find a topic I'd agree with you on even slightly.
Now, onto my my rantish ramble.
What is it about the idea of same sex marriages that sends people into a tizzy? Disregarding religion that is, I know what the religious groups are in a tizzy about. They're terribly predictable that way.
Note that we're talking about civil marriage, not religious. There is nothing in the court's decision to say that churches must perform ceremonies for same sex couples. This is about secular marriage, a topic completely separate from religion, despite the opinions of certain religious officials and adherents.
So, back to the tizzy. Could someone tell me just how same sex civil marriage weakens heterosexual marriages? From what I see of marriage these days I don't think it's possible for gay and lesbian couples to weaken marriage anymore than heterosexuals already are. Let's see, there's The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, Who Wants to Marry my Dad?, Temptation Island.... Revolting, the lot of them. Then there's the phenomenon most often seen with celebrities, the short term marriage. Anniversaries are supposed to be celebrated yearly not monthly. That's what the 'ann' part means, it comes from the latin word for year, anno.
Who has more right to a marriage, the couple that forgot a condom or other birth control and opted for a shotgun wedding "for the child" or the couple that fought the state for the right? The answer is neither. They both have the same right, though I give the second couple better odds on a lasting, loving, and supportive union.
And while I'm thinking on the word union, I might as well say that I think civil unions are a cop out. The theory behind a civil union is to offer the rights of civil marriage to same sex couples. They problem with this is that those rights can be limited and redefined. Even if the rights are truly equal to civil marriage they only apply in the state that the union was recorded in. Civil unions do not cross state lines, civil marriages do.
Of course the conservative federal government has conveniently hamstrung that by declaring marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Needless to say I think very little of the politicians that passed that one. Every argument I've heard to back up that definition boils down to a religious belief. Such arguments have no place in defining laws. Legislating morality is a slippery slope to a state supported religion.
So it is my hope that the Massachusetts legislature will step up to the challenge and support the Court's ruling. I hope that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be the leader in fully supporting a true gay marriage by granting civil marriage rights to all its citizens. The pessimist in me suspects some sort of civil union will be the outcome however. I hope I am proved wrong.
"It's wrong for any state to discriminate against gays and lesbians by denying them the many benefits and protections that the laws of the state provide for married couples." - Senator Edward M. Kennedy
If you'd like to read a portion of the court's decision and some feedback from the populace at large, check out this blog.