Wednesday, February 04, 2004
FOX News

"BOSTON — Massachusetts lawmakers must give gay and lesbian couples full and equal marriage rights, the state's highest court ruled Wednesday.

With its decision to back marriage and not the concept of civil unions, the court set the stage for the nation's first same-sex marriages (search) to take place beginning in mid-May. Plus, the court added fresh fuel to a debate that has split politicians, churches, and families around the country."

Check the FOX News website at http://www.foxnews.com/st[...]00.html for the full story. Personally, I agree with this decision. I think we should get away from the concept of having civil unions other than marriages. Of course, that means marriage must be an available option for everyone.

I strongly agree with the decision, but I have some reservations about the timing and I am worried about a backlash.

It was probably a calculated risk for the people who pursued this, and I hope they haven't made a bad judgment. The social conservatives are very strongly opposed to this, and they have a lot of political clout. They control the Republican Party, and practically everyone is afraid of them. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage has been proposed, and this decision may help to motivate the social conservatives to push this. It must be defeated. If it is not, it would set back the cause of gay and transgendered people for generations. Such an amendment, if passed, would be practically impossible to repeal.

For those outside of the U.S., here is the procedure. Congress has the power of proposing constitutional amendments. To propose an amendment, it must pass the House and the Senate with at least a 2/3 majority in each house. If it passes this difficult hurdle, it is sent to the states. When 3/4 of the states ratify the amendment, it becomes law. Of course, the repeal of an amendment is subject to the same standard.

This is a difficult standard, but it is not impossible. Getting through the Senate has been the most difficult step lately (an amendment to outlaw desecration of the U.S. flag has been stopped there a few times, while it has passed in the House). On that particular amendment, if it had made it through the Senate, it would have sailed through the states.

Considering how numerous states have passed laws outlawing same-sex marriage, I believe a constitutional amendment would make it through the states. It is up to the House and the Senate to stop it, and I believe the Senate is the best hope. Since they serve six-year terms, they are not as subject to popular whim as House members are. Hopefully, there are enough Senators who will see the folly of this and vote against it.

Considering the conservative political climate and Republican dominance in the federal government, I am very worried that this constitutional amendment has a real chance of passing. If it passes and people regret it later, it will only take a small number of people to block its repeal, so it will likely remain in the Constitution for a very long time. Courts may well interpret it beyond marriage; they may read into it an inequality for gay and transgendered people, and we could easily lose rights we have previously won.

This is my reason for having somewhat mixed feelings on the decision. Would it have been better to spend a little more time trying to convince the public, and wait for a more favorable political climate? Public support for same-sex marriage has been growing, but is this support strong enough at this point to defeat social conservatives who are very well organized and will use the very effective tactics of stirring up fear and hatred to push their goals? I don't know the answer to this, but I believe it was very risky to push a state to recognize same-sex marriage at this time. I sincerely hope it doesn't backfire on all of us.

Maybe if a constitutional amendment passes and the social conservatives strengthen their hold, I will be looking for work in Canada or Europe. I hope it doesn't come to this; I don't want to be forced out of my country.

Heather H.

Heather, Stevie--

I'm with you. I think there are positive and negative sides to this, and I am more convinced the negative outweighs the positives. I will post more later--

Jayne Sakura

Well, I think that some people are convinced that the civil rights movement is a thing of the past; that it was completed in the 1960s. It's still going on, but now homosexuals are the focus. Every advancement of one group makes it easier for those of us who follow, and I think trans people are next (we've already begun). That's one reason I'm following the gay marriage issue so closely. Another reason is that it has a direct relevance to the lives of many transsexuals, depending on their sexual identities and preferences (mainly, whom they can legally marry pre-op & post-op).

Rachel, are you suggesting this last step (gay marriages in MA) might be a case of too much too quickly? You might be right, but I tend to think there will be backlash no matter when the issue surfaces for the first time. It might as well be now. Let me know what you think.

Hi All!

I think it is too much too soon/fast...and I think Heather has the right idea: There will be a Constitutional Amendment, and it will pass very quickly. No politician wants to commit hari-kari with their political life. And since the conservatives are in charge, I think it will be a sloppy piece of work, and it will ultimately set us back 50 years and won't be able to be repealed in our lifetime.

I go back to what I have said before: Marriage is a religious ceremony. I am not really against the concept for us TG/Bi/L/G folks, but would rather see a civil union, or better yet, a civil ceremony. That way, you have all the stuff that comes with being a duly recognized, legal couple without all religious people blowing chunks. I work with a bunch of same...trust me when I say this has made my existance here very ugly.

Luv 'n hugs,

Mina Sakura

Gay marriages are popping up in more states each day.

Good? Bad?

It is hard to tell if this recent development will be good or bad in the end. This kind of action - a form of civil disobedience - has a long and distinguished history in this country, and it often has good results. Sometimes it is difficult to gain anything without having some people push the issue out into public view where it cannot be ignored. It is hard to imagine that the civil rights movement of the 1960's would have come as far as it did if not for some of the marches and bus incidents. However, the social conservatives will be able to use these recent events to stir up fear and to cement their hold on some people who might otherwise waver.

Only time will tell who will win this fight.

Heather H.

***WARNING! B*TCH ALERT---HORMONE LEVELS JUST GOT RAISED---YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!!!***

Rachel, dear--

If a church or denomination chooses to perform a gay wedding, that is different. To be forced to, or to be told they must, would be disasterous to the other extreme. As for those who hold solemnazation services they should be free to offer a gay marriage if that is what they choose. I will maintain to my final breath that marriage is a religous function. That the State has seen fit to license this, if for no other reason than there's money to be made, is a moot point. If this were not so, the "fundies" would not be so bloody up in arms.


Heather--

Civil disobedience is a good tool when used wisely. I am not sure that it is so here. There have been calls of "Judical Tyrrany" and so forth, and many people--who might have been more charitable under other circumstances--are now feeling like the issue is being crammed down their throats at a lightning pace. On the other hand, someone had to do something somewhere. There comes a point where the people will have to decide this, and right now, IMO, it ain't looking too promising. If Kerry gets elected, then I see a glimmer of hope. Should Bush get reupped...forget it. While I support the use of one's religious and/or moral upbringing (or lack thereof! ) to make a decent, educated decision, sometimes you have to make a decision you personally don't like for the general good.

Mina

Well, the California Supreme Court put a stop to the gay marriages, for now.

Fox News - Calif. Supreme Court Orders Halt to Gay Marriages

The way I see it, if our culture didn't have a problem with homosexuals being homosexuals, then our culture wouldn't have a problem with homosexuals marrying. Unfortunately, our culture simply has a built-in anti-gay (not to memtion anti-trans) attitude. I'm confident that aspect of our culture will eventually change, but when?