I guess I'm an unofficial AR news analyst

[BigGreen]

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!!

[bigol'legs]

wo... im not reading all that but I was going to start a post about it... I think both sides have valid points..

Gays- should be able to get the same rights and tax deducts and married couples..
State- .... well I guess cause they are the law..

[Tock]

Marriage . . . civil union . . . what it's called makes no difference to me, but it does to a lot of other gay folks.

The right wing is gonna go nuts if 2 gays are united through anything called marriage, and my guess is they'll push politicans to pass the Marriage Amendment to the US Constitiution, and it won't take long to do, either.

Unfortunately, a lot of gays won't be satisfied until the terminology is the same for everyone, Marriage Amendment be damned.

Makes no difference to me what it's called, marriage or civil union, so long as everyone gets the same benefits. But I don't think it's gonna work out that way . . . we'll probably get a marriage amendment to the constitution thanks to the religious right wing, and from there the religiious right is going to look worse and worse for oppressing a minority. Silly, but that's probably what'll happen . . . folks will get more and more fed up with fundamentalist's BS, and maybe 100 years down the road, the amendment will be undone, and christians will have yet another black mark on their long and checkered history.

Wake me up in 100 years and let me know how it all turns out . . .

[cb25]

I never expected MA to be the first state to do this...when i first moved here I was told i was moving into a more conservative, "Puritanical" state...

I expect this type of stuff from California honestly - 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...

[Bigboy123]

wo... im not reading all that but I was going to start a post about it... I think both sides have valid points..

Gays- should be able to get the same rights and tax deducts and married couples..
State- .... well I guess cause they are the law..

Yeah i reading that either, I guess u have a valid point. I dont think they should allow mariage but some sort of partnership so that gays get tax cuts...

[BigGreen]

I never expected MA to be the first state to do this...when i first moved here I was told i was moving into a more conservative, "Puritanical" state...

I expect this type of stuff from California honestly - 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...

Mass is an incredibly liberal state with a long history of Democrat allegiance. Even if no other part of mass but cambridge were liberal, it'd more than make up for the rest.

[BigGreen]

Makes no difference to me what it's called, marriage or civil union, so long as everyone gets the same benefits. But I don't think it's gonna work out that way . . . we'll probably get a marriage amendment to the constitution thanks to the religious right wing, and from there the religiious right is going to look worse and worse for oppressing a minority. Silly, but that's probably what'll happen . . . folks will get more and more fed up with fundamentalist's BS, and maybe 100 years down the road, the amendment will be undone, and christians will have yet another black mark on their long and checkered history.

Wake me up in 100 years and let me know how it all turns out . . .

I think there will undoubtedly be such a desire, but I couldn't in a million years imagine that the federal government would impinge on the rights of the state to define and grant/confer marriage. Even Cheney conceded a few months ago that it was a state issue.

[cb25]

Mass is an incredibly liberal state with a long history of Democrat allegiance. Even if no other part of mass but cambridge were liberal, it'd more than make up for the rest.

Ha...i'm starting to see that...especially the more i walk through Harvard Square

[BigGreen]

Ha...i'm starting to see that...especially the more i walk through Harvard Square

Yeah, you're not kidding. I was walking through the square not more than four days ago, and was "accosted" by two liberal wankers wanting me to sign a petition to protest the swearing in ceremony of Governor Schwarzenegger. Whether or not you are legitimately concerned with that, aren't there plenty of problems here in your own state that you might want to address before your start protesting the governor of a state 3,000 miles away solely because it's the cool liberal thing to do?

[cb25]

Yeah, you're not kidding. I was walking through the square not more than four days ago, and was "accosted" by two liberal wankers wanting me to sign a petition to protest the swearing in ceremony of Governor Schwarzenegger. Whether or not you are legitimately concerned with that, aren't there plenty of problems here in your own state that you might want to address before your start protesting the governor of a state 3,000 miles away solely because it's the cool liberal thing to do?

No shit. I'm especially impressed by the groups that want money for their great causes...there's a couple that I had the (dis)pleasure of meeting the other day...as soon as they found out I had no money to give them...i got, "ugh!" and they walked away...no thank you for your time, no well thanks anyway, or sorry to bother you.

And yea...focus on the problems in your own state...or even your own damn neighborhood. WTF is a petition to stop the swearing in of Arnold going to do? Let the world know that Cambridge doesn't like Arnold? What are you proving?

[slamd097]

Imo...I could care less, just so long as I don't get a cap't happy up my ass, they can do what ever in the hell they want. I wish evey one would let people be them selves!!

If some one likes their starfish punched, then let then, are they affecting you??? Same with those protestors, who arfe they kidding, do you want to go and fight the ocean with a base ball bat? kinda the same thing. People are going to do what they want weather it is wrong or right. And who is the judge of wrong or right, if you think it is for your own good?

Not falming anyone, just speaking generally

[gunner27]

Marriage . . . civil union . . . what it's called makes no difference to me, but it does to a lot of other gay folks.

The right wing is gonna go nuts if 2 gays are united through anything called marriage, and my guess is they'll push politicans to pass the Marriage Amendment to the US Constitiution, and it won't take long to do, either.

Unfortunately, a lot of gays won't be satisfied until the terminology is the same for everyone, Marriage Amendment be damned.

Makes no difference to me what it's called, marriage or civil union, so long as everyone gets the same benefits. But I don't think it's gonna work out that way . . . we'll probably get a marriage amendment to the constitution thanks to the religious right wing, and from there the religiious right is going to look worse and worse for oppressing a minority. Silly, but that's probably what'll happen . . . folks will get more and more fed up with fundamentalist's BS, and maybe 100 years down the road, the amendment will be undone, and christians will have yet another black mark on their long and checkered history.

Wake me up in 100 years and let me know how it all turns out . . .

I agree completely about the name being irrelevant as long as the benefits are there. However, there are at least thousands of laws that provide benefits related to marriage. It's a lot easier to change the definition of marriage than to change each and every one of those laws.

As far as the FMA goes, I don't see it passing Congress, even with this decision. It is extremely difficult to get a constitutional amendment passed. Look at the proposed flag burning amendment (which around 90% of the population favors) and the balanced budget amendment (also favored by huge majorities). Neither has even gotten out of Congress, let alone been approved by 3/4 of the states, which is necessary for an amendment to be ratified.

[gunner27]

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!!

Isn't it the purpose of the courts to provide a check on the legislatures, which tend to reflect majority will and can be used to oppress minorities? Do you agree with Brown v. Board of Education (outlawing school segregation) or Loving v. Virginia (overturning bans on interracial marriage)? Both were extremely unpopular at the time they were issued with large segments of the population, and both overturned many years of history--thousands in the case of Loving.

[tryingtogetbig]

I don't have a problem with gay relationships. The only true concern I have about any marriage at this time is the statistic that more than 50% end in a divorce.

I'm remotely curious as to what this number will be if gay and lesbian relationships are truly honored as a "marriage." I don't think that the vows before God are taken serious enough by anyone nowadays. I don't think that having more people joined in matrimony that will more than likely end in divorce is really a good thing.

I'm not attacking gay/lesbian relationships either...so don't even go there.

So, IMO, maybe some kind of other "term" for the relationship that passes some of the same benefits as marriage is more appropriate in my book.

Just my .02

peace,

ttgb

[BigGreen]

Isn't it the purpose of the courts to provide a check on the legislatures, which tend to reflect majority will and can be used to oppress minorities? Do you agree with Brown v. Board of Education (outlawing school segregation) or Loving v. Virginia (overturning bans on interracial marriage)? Both were extremely unpopular at the time they were issued with large segments of the population, and both overturned many years of history--thousands in the case of Loving.

You are, quite well I might add, appealing to the sentiment of notable instances in which a purpose was carried out and justice served through this particular legal vehicle, something I believe to be not as widely applicable as your argument would dictate. Let us suppose a police officer shoots a fleeing, unarmed man in the back, but this man was running towards the detonator of a nuclear device that was going to obletirate Cleveland. Great, fine, pin a medal on him...this was an instance in which it was required and a great good came from it. I would, however, have a great problem with police subsequently capping suspicious people in the back indiscriminately, even if it did end up getting rid of a few hardened criminals in the process. What the courts did with Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board, etc was to strike dow as unconstitutional actually unconstitutional laws. What courts are doing now (throughout the country, liberal and conservative alike) is hiding behind the ostensible purpose of evaluating constitutionality so that they might write law. One need look no further than the WIDESPREAD concern from liberal, conservatives and everyone in between that the composition of any court's personalities can serve to substantially re-WRITE law. Sure legal positivism is dead and some intersection of personal belief and legal interpretation occurs, but the political stance of a judge evaluating constitutionality (a fairly objective notion) should not come into play to the degree that it does. Unfortunately, it's a fact...a fact more or less solely attributable to the notion that judges fancy themselves writers of law as opposed to evaluators. Why? Don't know, but i suspect many judges, just like many U.S. politicians, are desirous of a historical legacy a la Brown v. Board. Who knows?

[Catamount]

Thank god, now I won't hear so much shit about VT being the only state with it. Welcome to the club. Now everytime someone asks where your from and you say Mass you'll have to hear, "oh, don't they allow gays to get married there?"

[BigGreen]

Not that this is shaming, but Mass can NEVER be shamed. We and we alone had the balls to instigate shit versus mommy England.

[mfenske]

I was watching Bill Maher a while ago and he made a good point. One of his guests said that a definition of marriage is a man and a woman being wed so that they can bear children. If that is so we allow people who are incapable of having children (medical reasons, elderly, etc.) to marry so why shouldn't gays and lesbians be allowed the same provision. I say if you love someone you love someone and their gender shouldn't matter. To me that's what marriage is, wanting to spend the rest of your life with someone you love. Mark