Massachusetts court says only gay marriage- not civil unions- is acceptable.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Yahoo News (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040204/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage)
The Massachusetts high court ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples — rather than civil unions — would be constitutional, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages could take place in the state beginning in mid-May.
The court was ruling in response to a state request for clarification of the court's november decision which found "no rational basis" to withhold marital rights from same-sex couples.

This is big, is it not? Massachusetts is going to have full-blown gay marriage, at least for the few years it takes to pass an amendment.

How is this going to affect the national election. This is Kerry's home state. I sbush now going to play the homophobe banjo harder than ever? I say yes. Some sort of bigoted, anti-gay marriage amendment will be part of the GOP platform. Mark my words.

Good for the court, though. I wonder how long it will take the earth to stop spinning once they start issuing those marriage licenses.

[Bippy the Beardless]

Sounds good.

Please could someone point me at a site that explains the difference between marriage and civil union in American law.

[John Mace]

I saw this in the news this morning. This is bad. It goes to the argument I had with Polycarp in an earlier thread about whether or not the court was being "activist" or not. This appears to leave no out for the legislature other than to enact gay marriage. It's hard for me to comprehend that the need for gays to be married (civil unions with all the legal status of marriage is not enough) within the next few months is so overwhelming that MA can't wait a bit longer to allow a constitutional amendment to pass or not pass per the will of the people.

And yes, this will be bad politically for the Dems. I've posted in several other threads how this plays right into the Pubs hands, so I won't repeat myself here. You saw a hint of it in the SotUA last month. Judicial activism tied into gay marriage.

[Metacom]

Aside from the 2004 election ramifications, what affect do people see this having on gay marriage as a whole? It seems to me that if a significant number of couples actually do get married, then it will be that much harder for an amendment to actually get passed (in MA).

[Metacom]

(Sorry if that seems like a hijack, Diogenes: the OP seemed pretty open ended and it seemed vaguely on-topic in regard to the "This is big, is it not?" question....)

[Menocchio]

While I tink I agree with teh court in principle, and definitely support gay marriage, I'm winching at the inevitable backlash. This coud set the gay right movemnt back years.

[elucidator]

Great. Just fuckin' great. The Forces of Darkness will be falling all over themselves in thier dead rush to "defend the sanctity of marriage" from the homosexual agenda. Shit.

That said, though, they have a point. If marriage is an institution with advantages for the participants, and if homosexuals are to be excluded, then a rational basis for that exclusion must be presented, and must be valid. Of course they're right, I just wish their goddam timing was better....


Digress: whats Barney Frank's take on this? I admire and respect him so much, I almost wish he'd move to Minnesota so I could vote for him. Pansy he may be, but he's got a set of stainless steel cojones.

[erislover]

This is big, is it not? Massachusetts is going to have full-blown gay marriage, at least for the few years it takes to pass an amendment. Likely, such an amendment will never pass. AFAICT the legislature is not in any hurry to try to continue discrimination, knowing that they cannot satisfy both the public and the judiciary. According to the majority, the state did not present a compelling case to continue the discrimination, leaving them only the route of finding one (not likely) or amending the constitution (not likely).
Good for the court, though. I wonder how long it will take the earth to stop spinning once they start issuing those marriage licenses.A coworker of mine already indicated he is "offended as a married person." I asked him if he was filing for divorce since his marriage is now meaningless. He felt seperate but equal is fine for him. I mentioned the problem all started after white property owners no longer held a monopoly on voting. He wasn't impressed, though I'm quite sure he'll not be able to muster up why.

[John Mace]

From this site (http://www.statescape.com/Resources/partysplits/partysplits.asp):

MA Assembly: 136 Democrats/23 Republicans/1 Independent
MA Senate: 34 Democrats/6 Republicans

Perhaps the legislature is out of sync with the people on this one. I haven't seen any MA polls on the issue of gay marriage, and perhaps the folks in that state do support it. To the extent that they don't, and if the legislature does not at least put an amendment up for a vote, there might be a few more Pubs in the legislature next time around.

[Lilairen]

The polls I saw after the first decision indicated that a majority of the people of Massachusetts supported the court's decision.

My personal suspicion is that this is why the legislature is sitting on its hands and not doing anything, either to enact the court's decision before the deadline or to prevent it. The will of the people is known; however, the will of the anti-gay-marriage sorts is also known, and anyone who introduces a bill to officially make gay marriage happen would be in their sights in a big way.

My impression is that plenty of folks around here think that gay marriage is just fine or at least not something to get their knickers in a twist over; however, most of them aren't voting on the basis of that issue. A candidate that got the anti votes mobilised in force might have problems, even if the district was more pro than anti; better and safer to just avoid the issue.

[athelas]

Remember that Massachussets was the only state to vote against Nixon (And yes, that means California too). Doesn't speak well for their mainstream-ness, eh?

[Shodan]

I second Bippy's question - what's the difference?

Regards,
Shodan

[erislover]

Shodan, Bippy, the Senate wanted to know if it mattered. The court felt that, in order to avoid "seperate but equal" issues, it did matter. The law for marriage should be the same for all, barring legitimate state interests which, in the case of homosexual discrimination, it (the state) could not support. If the state could not support discrimination, I don't see that it could support semantics. MHO.

[Metacom]

I second Bippy's question - what's the difference?
Marriage is a recognized tradition, with a long history. The concept of marriage is deeply enshrined and respected in the US.

"Civil Union" sounds Orwellian: make up a phrase to describe a concept that already has an accepted name in order to make it more palatable to an (admittedly large) segment of the populace.

[Loopydude]

Yep, this is big all right.

I'm probably in a self-selecting crowd, but the majority of the people I know aren't bent out of shape by the MASC's ruling today. They're pretty surprised, no question, but not terribly upset. So my very unscientific survey seems to agree with the post above, that, by and large, the people of MA don't have a big problem with the legalization of gay marriage. Archbishop O'Malley may say otherwise, but most of the Catholics in this state are pretty liberal. And besides the devout Catholics, the state is pretty secular in general, compared to other states.

So John Kerry is in a real bind, no question. We here in the People's Republic most certainly do NOT vote like folks in the Bible Belt. How can Kerry stay true to his constituents and appeal to the South and the Heartland? Probably he can't. At best, he can claim his personal values to not support gay marriage, while his constitutional and representational duties oblige him to honor the tolerant nature of the Mass. majority (bad pun, I know). Yeah, Bush is gonna flail him with this one.

Given the above, and for a few other reasons, I have a hard time believing the "activist jurist" hypothesis. If the the MASC really is hoping to institutionalize gay marriage, they seem to have chosen a risky way to go about it. Our state has no option now: Amend the constitution somehow, or gay marriage is here to stay. Since other states will be obliged to honor MA marriage licences, they must either accept it, or the US constitution must be amended. This is a big freakin' deal. The only alternatives I see are an amendment to ban gay marriage, or an amendment making marriage licenses from one state invalid in another; so like a drivers licence, if you want to be recognized as "married", and be a resident of another state, you've got to get a new license. The latter might have a huge negative impact on corporations, which will have to have separate benefits policies depending on the state; this would probably make it more difficult for certain sectors to keep empolyees in one state if said employees can just move to another state that better fits their values. It will divide the country in a way it's never been divided before.

It's a crisis, all around, and we're being forced into it by a strict deadline that essentially cannot be met. If the MASC has an agenda beyond strict interpretation of the MA constitution, damned if I can guess what it might be. Be they gay-friendly or hostile, the consequences of their actions could go either way, and have very long-term consequences. It's a hell of a gamble, if they've a vested interest in any particular outcome beyond clarification of the law.

[ElvisL1ves]

Remember that Massachussets was the only state to vote against Nixon (And yes, that means California too). Doesn't speak well for their mainstream-ness, eh?It does speak well for its being able to do the right thing, though - you do know what Nixon turned out to be, don't you? Well, forty-nine states were wrong. In an earlier age, the Boston-centered abolitionist movement was certainly "non-mainstream" at the time, but obviously correct in hindsight. Perhaps you ought to consider the arguments being made in Massachusetts before dismissing them?

At any rate, this by E. J. Dionne (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10795-2004Feb3.html) may help clarify for you what Massachusetts really is. As for what your glib remark has to do with fighting ignorance, let's leave that to you.

John Mace, if you think partisanship has anything at all to do with it, you need a better understanding of Mass. politics too. The most prominent division here isn't Rep/Dem but insider/outsider. Party names, except for a few stiff ideologues that nobody votes for anyway, are flags of convenience. What you see here is an autocratically-run legislature, with Speaker Finneran's loyal minions getting the goodies while those who oppose him might as well not show up. That includes reformist Dems as well as pretty much all self-named Reps. Outsiders can get elected (note the string of GOP governors sent to Beacon Hill by voters sick of the insiders), but can't get anything done unless they learn to play the inside game itself.

If Finneran can't see a simple statutory way to satisfy both the court and a predominantly working-class Catholic electorate without losing some of his own grip, then putting an amendment on the ballot to wash his hands of it politically may be his only way out, armtwisting by the church bureaucrats be damned. But, being the fair-minded people we are, and with a substantial resistance lately to following the directives of the Archdiocese, it is not nearly a sure thing to pass anyway.

elucidator, Barney Frank takes the position you'd expect he would, but has tried hard to stay in the background, knowing that he'd galvanize opposition if he did. He may, probably does, also know that legalization is more likely to happen if it simply looks like the right thing to do, not as the result of special-interest-group pressuring. Damn right the timing isn't great for Kerry, but when is timing ever perfect?

[RexDart]

Here's the complete text of what was entered into the record this morning as the courts advice:

http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/sjc_020404/

I don't think this is a very good advisory opinion. The original ruling was based on the principle that gays were being denied the tangible legal benefits of civil marriage, and that the justification for that denial was insufficient. The proposed civil union package would extend all of those benefits to gays who wanted to be joined, the statute proposed was very thorough in making civil union status equivalent to marital status in all statutes and common law definitions.

The only distinction between civil unions and marriage under the proposed system would have been the designation. What's in a name? Nothing, in the eyes of the law. They could change every instance of the word "marriage" to the phrase "banana dance" or "kumquat legion", and nothing would change functionally. Splitting the term into two functionally identical terms is no different than calling some restaurant servers "waiters" and others "waitresses". As long as they do the same job and are treated differently by the employer, they're really the same thing. We call them different terms out of tradition, and that's it.

This doesn't warrant comparisions to "separate but equal", as that phrase was historically used. Separation there was held to be inherently unequal because there was actual physical segregation going on that had a tangible negative effect. Civil unions and civil marriage would not be separate in any tanglible way. Those seeking civil union would not have to go to a different licensing bureau, or use a separate parallel court system to settle disputes, or any such thing. The full extent of their separation would be that one would appear at Section X.X of the state code, the other at Section Y.Y.

If what gays wanted was equal rights under the law, they would have been happy with civil unions. So clearly that isn't what they want. I suspect that what they want is to eradicate any distinction in human language between their sexual identity and lifestyle and that of the mainstream population, and by removing the linguistic distinction thus remove all distinction in thought or meaning. That would fit with some of the prevailing notions about language in intellectual circles these days, that linguistics is given credit for creating various social constructs that can be de-constructed in this way. Just a guess, of course, but something like that theory would have to be lying underneath all this for the choice of word to have such relevance.

[erislover]

If they're so equivalent, RexDart, then why should you care, either? The marriage law could not discriminate. Providing a seperate but equal kind of civil union would not have addressed the original problem, which was that the law was exclusionary without compelling state interest. Absent a compelling state interest, the esclusionary practice needed to be addressed. Do you get your own consitution that is "equivalent" in everything but name?

Dissenting justices already pointed out that nothing stopped gays from getting married. After all, nothing forbids a man from marrying a woman, right? Equality is where you find it, I guess.

[Leaper]

Here's my question: some pundits I've read state that this decision makes it more likely that a Constitutional amendment barring all same-sex marriages will pass, because they believe that it's inevitable that the national DOMA will be challenged in the Supreme Court, and that it'll be struck down for violating the Full Faith and Credit Clause, thus leaving us with the nightmare scenario conservatives paint of either "shoving gay marriage down the throat of every state," or the amendment.

What do you think?

As for the political consequences, well, it'll be uncomfortable, certainly, but when was election-time politicking ever not? We'll just have to see how this plays out in the next nine months... (Though asking both candidates "what do you think of homosexuals on a personal level? Do you believe that they will go to Hell?" would be kinda interesting, though I suspect ultimately pointless.)

[John Mace]

This is going to be a very difficult issue at the national level. I certainly hope the SCotUS will leave it to the states.

If MA does address the issue on a constitutional level, then some state (like Utah) most certainly will. It's my understanding that it's already been resolved that states which do not allow gay marriage do not have to recoganize it from another state. But I hope one of our resident lawyers can clarify that. And if this hasn't been dealt with by the SCotUS, then I'm sure it'll get booted up there in due time.

[Bippy the Beardless]

Thanks for the help. So Civil Union would be something different from but equal to marriage. I can see how this is a bad thing, since it would lead to a possibility in the future of them becoming no longe equal if rules are changed. I wasn't sure if marage and civil union weren't going to be the same thing as each other (a Marriage being a Civil Union that occurs with a Religious service) and both leading to the same legal state of mariage/civil union. This does make the new ruling very important and I hope it will prove enforcable.

[Ramanujan]

I don't think this is a very good advisory opinion. The original ruling was based on the principle that gays were being denied the tangible legal benefits of civil marriage, and that the justification for that denial was insufficient. The proposed civil union package would extend all of those benefits to gays who wanted to be joined, the statute proposed was very thorough in making civil union status equivalent to marital status in all statutes and common law definitions.
from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/index.html):

Civil unions grants couples most of the rights of state civil marriages, except the name, but provide none of the federal benefits of marriage, such as Social Security benefits.

so judge for yourself, i guess. it doesn't look like this is even a case of seperate but equal.

[Robbbbb]

So why not simply delete the word "marriage" from the books and call all of them, whether straight or gay, "Civil Unions"? That way, you can save the word "marriage" for the religious aspect of it where nobody can complain about marriage laws, and marriage would simply become like baptism or something, where it's something you do in your own church on your own terms. Of course, most marriages will also be civil unions, and vice-versa, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be the case.

Since there are churches that will perform gay marriages, it's no longer a right denied to gays. But John Q. Biblethumper can rest easy knowing that it'll never happen at his church. And at the same time, nobody is being denied any rights. Well, at least not at the state level.

[Ramanujan]

So why not simply delete the word "marriage" from the books and call all of them, whether straight or gay, "Civil Unions"? That way, you can save the word "marriage" for the religious aspect of it where nobody can complain about marriage laws, and marriage would simply become like baptism or something, where it's something you do in your own church on your own terms. Of course, most marriages will also be civil unions, and vice-versa, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be the case.

Since there are churches that will perform gay marriages, it's no longer a right denied to gays. But John Q. Biblethumper can rest easy knowing that it'll never happen at his church. And at the same time, nobody is being denied any rights. Well, at least not at the state level.
this seems like an altogether too reasonable position for the american populace and the federal and state legislatures to take.

also, it would be removing an aspect of religion from the law, and many think too much has been removed already and strongly desire to keep every last vestige of legislated morality and church law on the books.

[John Mace]

Robbbb:

I'd be very happy to see the gov't out of the marriage business altogether. No tax breaks, no special treatment. Set up legal contracts as needed for joint property, child custody, etc. Civil union is a perfect term for that. Leave marriage up to the churches.

But there are plenty of folks in the US who don't want the gov't to "sanction" gay relationships. Even if they have no issue with what people do in the privacy of their homes, they don't want the gov't to give tax breaks or special treatment to gay couples. Your proposal (and mine) would never fly in this country.

[Loopydude]

I agree with John Mace: Get the govt. out of the marriage business. What does marriage have to do with taxes anyway?

That ain't gonna happen though. No matter how principled, an end to government involvement in the institution of marriage will be seen by the majority of Americans as capitulation to the radical left wing, and the abandonment of the government's duty to protect the American family.

Already the pundits are weighing in heavy, and I am convinced this will not only galvanize the right wing, it will be a major deciding factor for swing voters in the upcoming election. By and large, they will swing right. This issue could torpedo any Democratic presidential candidate, be it Kerry, Edwards, or Dean. Nothing Bush could have done with Iraq will seem as evil to far too many Americans as the sanctification of gay marriage. They'll gladly forgive him for an unjust war if he can save the American family. Bush has already said he'll support an ammendment of the US Constitution banning gay marriage if need be, and this ruling will put huge momentum behind Wayne Allard's efforts to sponsor said amendment.

Certainly the right decision, but almost as certainly the wrong time to make it. In an election year, when 2/3 of the country still thinks homosexuality is immoral, forget about gays getting married. A civil union bill would have insulated everyone from the full ramifications, yet still provided progress in the right direction. Todays ruling puts that progress in real jeopardy. Constitutional ammendments are hard to enact, but even harder to repeal.

It's gonna be a hell of a year.

[John Mace]

One has to applaud this concerted effort by those on The Left to get out the Religeous Right vote in '04. But this is no big surprise except in the timing. I thought we'd have to wait until May before the sh*t hit the fan.

[erislover]

Yeah, John, we all have direct lines to the Mass Supreme Court and just tell them what to say. This was the culmination of directed effort. Imagine what we could do in your state! Our robot chameleon assassins are already making their way over.

[Hamish]

Robbbb:

I'd be very happy to see the gov't out of the marriage business altogether. No tax breaks, no special treatment. Set up legal contracts as needed for joint property, child custody, etc. Civil union is a perfect term for that. Leave marriage up to the churches.

One problem: immigration.

I wasn't much interested in the fight for gay marriage, originally. Now, a few of my friends are in binational couples. When straight people have this problem, they get married. It's far easier to bring a spouse than a boyfriend home to one's country.

Problem the second: portability.

I live in Quebec, Canada, where we have civil unions. This means nothing the moment I cross the Canadian border. It doesn't even mean anything in countries like Belgium and the Netherlands, that have gay marriage. It doesn't even mean anything if I cross the border into another province. Alberta is allowed to pretend it doesn't exist.

That's why the government has to be in the marriage business. Marriage crosses borders. Civil unions don't.

[jayjay]

One has to applaud this concerted effort by those on The Left to get out the Religeous Right vote in '04. But this is no big surprise except in the timing. I thought we'd have to wait until May before the sh*t hit the fan.

Yes, gay citizens...simply smile and accept that you are second-class humanity in the US because doing anything could be politically damaging. Laugh in a childlike manner and say "Yes, Massah!" so that the straight but uncomfortable can relax in their cloudcuckooland where gay men are nice little pets of their satisfactorily straight fag hags and don't actually have SEX or anything nasty or icky like that. Gods,no!

Listen, if the American people disappoint me by taking this development as an excuse to vote in reactionary neanderthals who will then do their religious duty and approve a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to keep me from enjoying my right to marriage, then the American people can suck my ass as it passes by on the way to fucking Canada. I am SO TIRED of this shit!

[ElvisL1ves]

Here's my question: some pundits I've read state that this decision makes it more likely that a Constitutional amendment barring all same-sex marriages will pass ...What do you think?Sure, right after the flag-burning amendment is rataified. It only takes a 2/3 vote of each house and 2/3 of the states, right? No problem.

John, wasn't the Religious Right already going to vote pretty much en bloc for Bush as it is? If they pump up the hatred to the level we know they're capable of, it's more likely to backlash on them, and Bush, than to attract any more net votes - the in-betweeners are more likely to vote against haters than for any particular policy. "Concerted effort by The Left"? In your dreams.

[nisosbar]

Maybe I'm naive, but I just don't think that Americans are really going to let the presidential contenders make this THE election issue. Most Americans aren't single-issue voters anyway. And there is still the disastrous budget, the mess in Iraq, no WMD's, etc.

MA did the right thing. Enjoy it! Celebrate!

Sometimes, I feel gays are sort of namby-pamby, always looking over their shoulders fearfully for the reactionary fag-basher - not that that's not understandable, but I get tired of all this second-guessing and cowering in the shadows. Gays won big with this ruling.

Gays: you have the right to be treated EQUALLY with heterosexuals, in every state, all over the world.

Homophobes will tell you that you don't have the right, how dare you, you're being selfish, etc., but the least you deserve is to defend your rights from encroachment.

[Scylla]

I'm cautiously optimistic about this.

After the first gay marriage in Massachusetts, we then come to a test of DOMA. Doma says that other states don't have to recognize a gay marriage.

I find this to be blatantly unconstitutional. States rights has been presumed by some to be a dirty word, or "code" for bigotry. In reality though it's an important issue which pertains to reciprocity between states in the service of the union. It means that while the states have the clear right to determine that which is not reserved by the Constitution for the Federal Government, they also have to recognize and respect each others laws.

This is why if you have a license in Florida you can drive in NY. This is why you can retire in Arizona after having worked in NJ and not pay NJ income taxes on your pension. The states have to recognize each others laws, and cannot tax or constrain each other.

Constitutionally the rest of the country has to recognize Mass's gay marriages, even though Doma says they don't.

I think it's inevitable that Doma be thrown out. There are two possible tests. First is a test of Mass state marriage. The second test could be if in a state attempted to use DOMA as a precedent not to recognize a heterosexual marriage.


This leaves one last bomb, a constitutional ammendment. I'm afraid that we'll see it, but I hope cooler heads will prevail and realize that equality doesn't hurt anybody.

[John Mace]

States rights has been presumed by some to be a dirty word, or "code" for bigotry. In reality though it's an important issue which pertains to reciprocity between states in the service of the union. It means that while the states have the clear right to determine that which is not reserved by the Constitution for the Federal Government, they also have to recognize and respect each others laws.

I saw Barny Frank on one of the talk shows tonight talking about how this is an issue of State's Rights. It's interesting to see the left suddenly realizing that it's not a code-word for racism.

I think it's great. This is getting people to talk about all sorts of fundamental issues like State's Rights, Constructionalist interpretation of the constitution. etc., etc., etc..

And just a note to some of the posters responding to earlier posts I made about the political ramifications: Don't cofuse my own position with what I'm saying will play out in the political world. I'm pretty much neutral on the whole issue, and want to leave it up to the states to decide, with a preference for a legislative solution over a judicial one. As I've said many times, I'd prefer that the gov't be completely out of this whole issue altogether. But when you play in the current political environment it behooves onesself to be aware of the political ramifications.

[jayjay]

And just a note to some of the posters responding to earlier posts I made about the political ramifications: Don't cofuse my own position with what I'm saying will play out in the political world. I'm pretty much neutral on the whole issue, and want to leave it up to the states to decide, with a preference for a legislative solution over a judicial one. As I've said many times, I'd prefer that the gov't be completely out of this whole issue altogether. But when you play in the current political environment it behooves onesself to be aware of the political ramifications.

It's difficult for me to pull myself out of the situation and look at it objectively, but I hope that I can manage it when necessary. My little explosion wasn't directed at you directly so much as at the whole "See what you're doing to the fight to get rid of Bush?" attitude.

[Shodan]

Thanks for the responses.

AFAICT, the court is saying that we have to call it "marriage", and that nothing else will do - not "civil union", not anything else.

Am I alone in thinking this one of the pettiest distinctions without a difference I have heard in months, and that it makes the Mass. Supreme Court look like idiots?

"Separate but equal"? Feh. Unless they can point to some significant difference in the way "civil unions" are treated as opposed to "marriage", the Mass. Supreme Court can go pound sand.

Regards,
Shodan

[erislover]

I believe the difference also has to do with Federal tax status, Shodan; at least, that's what I heard on the news last night.Am I alone in thinking this one of the pettiest distinctions without a difference I have heard in months, and that it makes the Mass. Supreme Court look like idiots?I don't know, do you look like an idiot for getting worked up over it yourself? I'd say no, of course, but that blade you wield seems to have two edges.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Thanks for the responses.

AFAICT, the court is saying that we have to call it "marriage", and that nothing else will do - not "civil union", not anything else.

Am I alone in thinking this one of the pettiest distinctions without a difference I have heard in months, and that it makes the Mass. Supreme Court look like idiots?

"Separate but equal"? Feh. Unless they can point to some significant difference in the way "civil unions" are treated as opposed to "marriage", the Mass. Supreme Court can go pound sand.

Regards,
Shodan
If there isn't any difference then why do you care? What would be the point of NOT calling it marriage? That's the point. The state has to show a reason to change the word and it hasn't. It's the STATE that's being petty.

[SanibelMan]

"Separate but equal"? Feh. Unless they can point to some significant difference in the way "civil unions" are treated as opposed to "marriage", the Mass. Supreme Court can go pound sand.

Regards,
Shodan Um, just such a distinction was noted earier in the thread, Shodan... Civil unions grants couples most of the rights of state civil marriages, except the name, but provide none of the federal benefits of marriage, such as Social Security benefits. From CNN. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/index.html)

[Governor Quinn]

Remember that Massachussets was the only state to vote against Nixon (And yes, that means California too). Doesn't speak well for their mainstream-ness, eh?

Point of order: California went Republican in six straight Presidential elections, 1968 to 1988, and was (I believe) the only large state to do so.