As many of you have likely heard by now, my great home state of Massachusetts has, in effect and presently loosely speaking, allowed for the provision of gay marriage. Anyone interested in the specifics of the opinion, etc, etc is welcome to "google" their way to the answer, as I'd rather not get in to the lengthy discussion of the facts so much as I'd like to hear reactions. While my opinions are normally and almost necessarily foolish, I've already received a few PMs asking what my thoughts on it are (must be the law school aspirant thing). So, without further delay, I'm hoping my comments/reaction will spurn a mature and fruitful thread on the subject matter:
I should start by saying that A) I support in principle the decision of the MA SJC and B) I am principally opposed to the idea of gay "marriage" by its strict definition. Paradoxical holdings? Not really. I believe a marriage by definition is the union between a man and a woman, as it has been since time memorium and to specifically request that the term be applied to something other than a male/female union is akin to a male biological father requesting that he be legally considered his boy's mother, for whatever reason. However, marriage, as it is conceived, applied and constructed in our society no longer has much of anything to do with that definition. It is now primarily a legal vehicle through which certain rights (insurance, benefits, etc, etc) are realized and attained. As such, marriage has in many ways been reduced to a legal contract IN THE EYES OF THE GOVERNMENT. That same government can not then, in my opinion, disallow the conference of such benefits on the basis of anything BUT the explicitly illegal (ie, a 30 year old man wishing to marry a 7 year old girl and claiming that any denial would be a violation of his civil liberties, as some have foolishly suggested this decision is analogous to). Accordingly, I am 100% for the legal recognition of such a union insofar as marriage is a legal construct purportedly based on the emotion of love.
Where I think reverberations might occur in the negative are with regards to domestic partner benefits in MA (and future states this might apply to) exactly six months from now. My big fear is that the gay community will entirely undermine their efforts by wanting it both ways. For example, current domestic partner benefits are accorded same-sex couples in many institutions throughout MA as a way of recognizing that such benefits are unjustly and perpetually denied homosexual individuals. My girlfriend and I, however, are ineligble to share insurance and whatnot because we supposedly have the option of a legal union. This has been frustrating in the past. The second legal gay marriage goes into effect, if domestic partner benefits still exist for same-sex partners who are now on a leveled playing field with heterosexuals, I predict that the backlash will be unreal.
Finally, while a big fan of the decision, I am not a big fan of its source. I find the recent trend of courts being very proactive with regards to their circumspect methods of "making" law as opposed to evaluating law disturbing. This is another tragic example of this. As you can see, I'm quite torn. I feel this is a just and necessary step, but that it has come from quite the wrong source (should have come from legislators)...in the end, I haven't arrived at an opinion of the amalgam.
Anyway, to all you PMers, hope i did you justice. To everyone else....DISCUSS!!
Reply With Quote
im not reading all that but I was going to start a post about it... I think both sides have valid points..
- i don't mean that in a bad way - i fully support this decision...however, CA seems to be more "cutting edge" on this type of stuff...
Originally Posted by bigol'legs
