Gay Marriage Ban in Massachusetts

why do people think that personal lives need to be legislated?

That's the way, it's always been. So it seems.

It is completely beyond me why anyone would think banning gay marriages is ok.

homophobia?

ok, let me rephrase that.

It is completely beyond me why any legislating entity would think banning gay marriages is constitutional.

Basically, it seems they really dont want gay/lesbian couples to have the sam legal rights as given in a man/woman marriage. So, if this fight, which is being looked into regarding constitutional rights, doesnt win on those efforts, perhaps the advocates should consider at least commitment statutes and the like to get their foot in the door so to speak.
Its not fair, I agree but, I also see why they are up in arms, although I dont agree with them.

Once again, I'm glad to be living in Canada.

Marriage should be re-defined as between one couple and leave out the specifics of gender.

There are a lot of legal remifications of a marriage. For those of you who don't know me, let me state first that I am definitely NOT homophobic, but there are a lot of legal problems that need to be worked out. (I am thinking of the legal benefits of marriage.)

If gays are to marry and receive legal benefits, what about a mother and daughter that live together? What about two brothers? Two friends who want to live together permanently?

Some might say that the difference would be a sexual relationship. Well then, what about an elderly widow and widower who want to marry? They may not have a sexual relationship, yet they are permitted marriage.

I am all for gays having the same legal rights as straights as far as legal ramifications are concerned, but I like the idea of a "domestic partnership", rather than a marriage.

In fact, maybe the term. "domestic partnership" might be one that could include all sorts of couples, including a man and a woman. The only criteria would be is that the two people would have the same rights and RESPONSIBILITIES as in a conventional marriage.

I think that "marriage" carries with it a lot of historical "baggage", that could not be discarded easily!

Sometimes old luggage which is no longer in use needs to be taken out of the attic, aired out, examined for wholeness, and either be put to new use or tossed out.

The difference would be, I guess <shrugs>, that the married gay couple would involve an exclusive relationship, based on romantic love and faithfulness and intended to last for eternity - just like that between a married man and woman.

Nobody's gonna check whether newly-weds have really married out of love (and not for practical reasons) and whether they're really faithful, but that in principle sets the relationship with that one Significant Other that is sealed in marriage apart from a relationship with a brother, daughter or friend: it implies a unique bond to the exclusion of any other of the same kind (i.e., you can have two brothers or good friends but not two men whom you choose as husband), and about which a promise of loyalty unto death is made.

I really don't see how with two men who love each other and love each other only, and want to seal their bond for life, that bond is any different, or carries any different legal or moral ramifications, than that between a man and woman with the identical wish.

I don't see, either, how extending the "legal benefits" of marriage to gay couples who want to marry, involve any serious legal problems, either. The surviving partner has a right to a widowers' pension, say, and i terms of inheritance he has the right any married partner has. So? Extending the rights marriage implies to friends or family members who live together, however, would imply complications in that field, I'd say. Does my roommate inherit my possessions, instead of my family, if I die? I don't think so. I don't know, it just sounds like a totally different kind of situation altogether and I don't really see how the comparison comes into play at all.

Gays can marry here in the Netherlands, and there is no difference between a marriage between gays and a marriage between straights, and yes, that includes adoption rights. Again: if a gay couple has sworn to form a lasting, exclusive family relationship with each other, a kid should be as safe with them as with any straight couple. Now, with the other forms of 'domestic partnership' you suggest - I can't easily imagine a mother and daughter, or two good friends, adopting a baby together.



And nor should it be. It is exactly this historic baggage - this implication of a unique bond sealed and blessed forever, that goes beyond any of an improvised range of 'domestic partnerships', that has made so many gay couples want to marry. And why would one begrudge them the right?

nimh- I suppose that if it works in the Netherlands, it certainly COULD work in the US. The problem is to convince the powers- that-be that gay unions are desirable socially, so that they would vote for changes in the laws.

There's only been two practical problems so far.

One concerned a small number of civil servants, who, belonging to some of the strictest Protestant churches, didn't want to personally perform gay marriages, and requested the right to ask a colleague to stand in for them when gay couples came to marry. They were initially not allowed to do so. There was a court case in the end that made the news, I don't know how it ended (didn't seem to make the news again).

Two is the issue of adopting children from oversea countries, where, the suggestion was, the authorities (if not the parents themselves) would object to adoption by gay couples to the extent that they might not process adoption requests from the Netherlands anymore. I've only ever heard this come up in discussions about what problems might appear, never in a report of something that actually came up.

I think both these problems could be quite easily solved or gone around; I'm not aware of any others.

I'm with you Beth.

Changing the definition of marriage


By Jeff Jacoby, 3/9/2003

URING THE ORAL argument in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Massachusetts lawsuit aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage, it was Justice Martha Sosman of the state's Supreme Judicial Court who put her finger on the crux of the case. ''Could it not also be framed,'' she asked Mary Bonauto, the lawyer for the gay and lesbian plaintiffs, that ''you're seeking to change the definition of what the institution of marriage is?'' After all there have been right-to-marry cases before, involving (for example) interracial couples, prison inmates, or the mentally retarded. But, Sosman noted, they ''have not changed . . . the historical fundamental definition of what the institution is.''


That's it in a nutshell. The plaintiffs are not asking for the right to marry, for each of them has exactly the same marriage rights as every other Massachusetts adult. What they really seek is to alter the legal definition of ''marriage'' so it encompasses something it has never encompassed before: same-sex unions.

Has the time for that alteration arrived? A case for it can certainly be made. After all, family law has changed profoundly in recent decades -- think of no-fault divorce, adoption by same-sex couples, or the expanded rights of single parents -- and it has become almost a mainstream opinion that the meaning of marriage should change with it. A forthright call for amending the marriage statutes so that men can marry men and women can marry women would be received sympathetically by many people.

But advocates of same-sex marriage who have embarked on a litigation strategy would rather not be forthright. To Sosman's observation that the plaintiffs' real goal is to change the definition of marriage, Bonauto replied, ''I would respectfully disagree, your honor.'' She had no choice. To agree would have been to concede that her clients were before the wrong branch of government: It is the job of the Legislature, not the courts, to configure the structures of state law.

To agree would have been to concede something else, too -- something even more damaging to the plaintiffs' case: The changes wouldn't stop with same-sex couples.

There are three core elements to a legal marriage: It must be a union of (1) two people (2) of the opposite sex (3) who are not related. The Goodridge plaintiffs are asking the SJC to strike No. 2 -- to rule that denying a couple a marriage license because they are both men or both women is to violate their civil rights. ''Because marriage is so centrally about an individual's love and commitment,'' their brief argues, ''it is embraced within the sphere of privacy and self-determination protected by the liberty and due process clauses of the Massachusetets Constitution.''

But if Core Element No. 2 can be struck down for that reason, so can No. 1 and No. 3. If the state has no right to deny a marriage license to would-be spouses of the same sex, on what reasonable grounds could it deny a marriage to would-be spouses from the same family? Or to would-be spouses who happen to number three or four instead of two?

Again it was Sosman who pointed out the obvious. If the ban on same-sex marriage is an unconstitutional restriction, she asked, why not the ban on polygamy? ''What would the difference be? These would be adults, consenting adults, saying this is the relationship we want.''

Bonauto's answer was telling: She said that neither the Legislature nor the SJC had ever suggested that a marriage could comprise more than two people. The justices were kind enough not to point out that until fairly recently, no one had ever suggested that a marriage could comprise two people of the same sex, either. But the implication of her words was unmistakable: Should the day come when demands for legalized polygamy (or polyandry) are heard, they would have to be taken seriously.

Other supporters of same-sex marriage imply the same thing. ''To the best of my knowledge,'' writes Andrew Sullivan, one of the movement's most articulate proponents, ''there is no polygamists' rights organization poised to exploit same-sex marriage to return the republic to polygamous abandon.'' Behind the ridicule is an evasion: We don't have to talk about legalizing multispouse marriages, Sullivan is saying, because no one is making an issue of it. But you don't have to look very far to find advocates who are poised to do just that. Type the word ''polyamory'' into a search engine and see where it leads you. Or look up the ACLU's position on ''plural marriage.''

Is same-sex marriage a good idea? I think it is quite a bad idea, but I understand the arguments in its favor. And I can sympathize with committed gay and lesbian couples who want to change the definition of marriage in order to partake of its benefits.

But sometimes, change destroys. No structure can stand for long when its bearing wall is removed. The bearing wall of marriage -- its central and universal defining characteristic -- is its heterosexuality. Knock that down, and what is left will become a ruin.


Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is [email protected].

This story ran on page D11 of the Boston Globe on 3/9/2003.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.


[ Send this story to a friend | Easy-print version | Search archives ]

I thought "The bearing wall of marriage -- its central and universal defining characteristic" was love. Romantic, life-long, exclusive love.

I thought that the "central characteristic" of the love it was made to bless was that it was pledged exclusively and for ever, through good times and bad - not that it was pledged between someone with a penis and someone with a vagina.

No one should have to marry two women or two men if they don't want to! That's silly.... isn't it? Wouldn't there always be someone around who would be happy to perform the service (religious or otherwise)?

truly fascinating, New Haven;
I stand with Phoenix' first post,
entriguing topic

ehmm ... this was about the civic ceremony, at city hall, you know? Which is also when the marriage is officially registered. So it has to be done by the civil servant 'on duty' at the time.

A civil servant, in Frysia I believe, refused to do this part of his job - and was (rather overzealously, I find) threatened with dismissal. He went to court about it, supported by the small Christian Union political party I think - I don't know what the outcome was. (Personally I don't really see why that kind of opting out should be a problem - they can arrange another civil servant to take over, right? <shrugs>)