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.
from CNN:
so judge for yourself, i guess. it doesn’t look like this is even a case of seperate but equal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Um, just such a distinction was noted earier in the thread, Shodan…
From CNN.
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.