I got married in Massachusetts just after gay marriage became legal...
And, every night, as I kiss my wife goodnight, I am forced to wonder- does someone else kissing their same-sex spouse in another bed mean I don't love my wife.
It's already more legally feasible than gay marriage.
At least with that you get 1/2 of the deal.
I know a lesbian couple who adopted. Of course, only one of them could legally adopt, as far as I know. But I suppose that's no different than states that have default custodial laws for children born out of wedlock.
In all seriousness, this article was published in the Boston Globe on the day that gay marriage became legal... and, was written by a Baptist Minister, and a professor at the Harvard Divinity School.
It is the best piece I've read in the press on gay marriage, and I cite it often- including the above George Wallace line.
If you are too lazy/busy/whatever to read the whole thing, this paragraph should get you there:
If society waited for majority opinion and legislative action, African-Americans, for example, would still be enduring the indignities of separate but equal accommodation and the other manifestations of legal, social, and political segregation. If the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge is "judicial tyranny," let there be more of it.[/b]
Enjoy the article... it has meant a LOT to me over the last five years. That was a great day to be an American, and a resident of Massachusetts.
The Boston Globe
Boston Globe, The (MA)
February 8, 2004 FOR MASSACHUSETTS, A CHANCE AND A CHOICE Author: PETER J. GOMES Edition: THIRD Section: Op-Ed
WHEN THE PILGRIMS LANDED AT PLYMOUTH IN 1620, AMONG THE FIRST THINGS THEY DID FOR THE WELL-ORDERING OF THEIR NEW COMMONWEALTH WAS TO INSTITUTE THE DUTCH CUSTOM OF CIVIL MARRIAGE WITH WHICH THEY HAD BECOME FAMILIAR DURING THEIR LONG SOJOURN IN THE NETHERLANDS. The Dutch made civil marriage the law of the land in 1590, and the first marriage in New England, that of Edward Winslow to the widow Susannah White, was performed on May 12, 1621, in Plymouth by Governor William Bradford, in exercise of his office as magistrate.
There would be no clergyman in Plymouth until the arrival of The Rev. Ralph Smith in 1629, but even then marriage would continue to be a civil affair, as these first Puritans opposed the English custom of clerical marriage as unscriptural. Not until 1692, when Plymouth Colony was merged into that of Massachusetts Bay, were the clergy authorized by the new province to solemnize marriages. To this day in this Commonwealth the clergy, including those of the archdiocese, solemnize marriage legally as agents of the Commonwealth and by its civil authority. Chapter 207 of the General Laws of Massachusetts tells who may perform such ceremonies.
This little bit of social and legal history should prove instructive in the current debate concerning marriage in this Commonwealth, and the controversial ruling thereon by the Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health. The petitioners did not address religious issues, and the court's ruling was not premised on religious grounds: Marriage, its definition, rights, and responsibilities, was understood here as a civil matter, as it has been since 1621.
Thus, while the legitimate interests of religious communities in what some of them regard as the sacrament of marriage are worthy of consideration, those interests must not be confused either with the civil law of the Commonwealth or the civil rights of the citizens under its constitution.
No clergy of any denomination are required to wed anyone of whose union they do not approve: There is no civil right to be married in church or with its blessing. The civil law is just that, and the distinction between it and ecclesiastical law is as important as the necessary distinction between church and state. Surely, after two years of protracted debate between church law and civil law in the child-abuse scandals we should appreciate the necessity of these distinctions.
It is to the civil rights of the citizens of Massachusetts that the Supreme Judicial Court responded in the Goodridge case, and this was no attack on the church, nor on religion. It was recognition that the social custom restricting marriage to heterosexuals, a custom long sanctioned by church and society, was no longer to be regarded as consistent with the rights of citizens under the constitution.
We have seen this before. When the courts eventually invalidated long-established laws sanctioned by church and society that forbade interracial marriage, the so-called "miscegenation" laws that obtained in many parts of this country within living memory, the courts that did this were invariably maligned as interventionist, arbitrary, and usurpatious.
Most now would agree that those laws were wrong, indeed unconstitutional, and that the courts were right in their judgments on behalf of the petitioners.
"Judicial tyranny" is a phrase usually heard from those whose prejudices have not been sustained by a court's decision. Happily, the fundamental rights of citizens in this Commonwealth and republic are in the long run defended against another form of tyranny even more dangerous, the tyranny of the majority.
Legislatures more often than not are subject to the prevailing passions of any majority that can muster sufficient votes; rarely are legislatures in the first instance instruments of social change. It was, after all, legislators who, reflecting the views of those who elected them, kept in place every oppressive law on the books until challenged by aggrieved citizens who sought relief in the courts.
If society waited for majority opinion and legislative action, African-Americans, for example, would still be enduring the indignities of separate but equal accommodation and the other manifestations of legal, social, and political segregation. If the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge is "judicial tyranny," let there be more of it.
In the forthcoming constitutional convention, the legislature will be pressured to develop a politically expedient alternative to the clear and unambiguous meaning of the Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge decision. It will be a stretch of rationality if it can do so. His excellency the governor is as misguided in his efforts to find an agreeable alternative to the court's decision as he is in seeking an error-proof justification for the reintroduction of capital punishment into this commonwealth. Surely, he has other matters with which to concern himself.
These legislative and executive maneuvers are not unlike those of such southern Democrats as Harry Flood Byrd, George Corley Wallace, and Strom Thurmond, who, after Brown v. Board of Education, which just 50 years ago mandated the end of segregation in public schools, sought to use every political and legislative means at their considerable disposal to nullify the meaning of the court's unprecedented decision. Is there anyone, save for the most retro-racist, who says now that Byrd, Wallace, and Thurmond were right and Earl Warren and his court wrong?
William Sloane Coffin, former Yale chaplain, civil rights and antiwar activist, in his most recent book defines hell as "truth seen too late." History indicts those who in time of trouble and transition choose the past over the future.
There are always conscientious people of deeply held religious conviction who, alas, on the basis of those convictions find themselves on the wrong side of history, such as those in our own Commonwealth who hanged witches in the 17th century and embraced the fugitive slave laws in the 19th century; and those who in our own time find the support of custom, reason, and faith in their prejudices against Roman Catholics, Jews, and persons of other colors and ethnicities.
This resistance to extending not special rights but civil rights to homosexuals in marriage is but the most recent instance of this dubious legacy, and is not made any more palatable or respectable today by the support given to it by visible and highly placed clergy across denominational lines, from whom we have a right to expect better.
The way to the future is always paved by extending, not restricting, liberties, especially to those who heretofore have been excluded. The health of a republic may well be determined by its capacity
to adapt itself to the extension of its own privileges and responsibilities to those whom it would be easy by custom and conviction to ignore.
John Adams's Massachusetts Constitution, the oldest such document in the world, laid down the rational basis for a civil body politic whose capacious hospitality has successively embraced people and views not contemplated by the founders. The Great and General Court ought not to betray the fundamental principles of our Commonwealth's constitution by promulgating amendments that will, for the first time in our history, restrict rather than extend the rights and liberties of all of our citizens. To do so will do nothing to restore the difficult circumstances of modern marriage.
Divorce will not be halted, abuse will not be eliminated, frivolous heterosexual liaisons such as the recent publicity stunt of Britney Spears will still be lawful, and annulments will still be sought and obtained in the church courts. Nothing will be done to save marriage, and yet in the name of doing so, incalculable, retrogressive, and even punitive damage will be done to those of our fellow citizens who under the civil law crave the legitimization of their loving relationships.
The defense of marriage demands much more than legislative manipulation enshrining the status quo. The defenders of traditional marriage argue that marriage has been a heterosexual affair since "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," and at the same time they argue that this exclusively heterosexual institution is in serious trouble.
Logic would suggest that such troubles as marriage experiences cannot be laid at the door of those who have been, at least until Goodridge, rigorously excluded from it.
To extend the civil right of marriage to homosexuals will neither solve nor complicate the problems already inherent in marriage, but what it will do is permit a whole class of persons, our fellow citizens under the law heretofore irrationally deprived of a civil right, both to benefit from and participate in a valuable yet vulnerable institution which in our changing society needs all the help it can get.
The Legislature has a choice, and a chance to do the right thing. In this case, it is to do nothing. That shouldn't be so hard.
PETER J. GOMES Peter J. Gomes is the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey Minister in the Memorial Church at Harvard University. He is an American Baptist minister.
i'm a little confused...what does religion and marriage have to do with each other ? Why exactly is this a religious issue at all ? my uncle and his second franchise are going to some church where the preacher is spouting hate about gays and obama and they are in total agreement...why does the preacher feel as if this is an issue he has any authority over ?
Can I remind you dudes that CA just passed a proposition revoking gay marriage?
I'm really proud of my home state Vermont right now but we still have a long way to go.
I still think it will happen though, probably within the next 10 years actually. Lotta hard work to be done though, and older generation dying out / new generation voting to happen first.
Can I remind you dudes that CA just passed a proposition revoking gay marriage?
And friggin IOWA just legalized it.
Honestly, the failure to stop Prop 8 rests with the opposition. I'm not feeling the "blame teh blacks/mormons/Rick Warren/etc" reasoning. Californians need to look in the mirror on that. A lot of folks were slacking on their macking, and only when it became apparent that the proposition might actually pass did people start motivating. Too little, too late. This too shall pass, though.
your boy
Yeah you know what's ill I actually disagree with Obama on that. ZOMG!!! I CAN HAZ POLITICAL NUANCE??!!??!!!!1
that sounds even worse than when people call their bf, gf, wife or husband their partner.
apparently the american way idea of being free has caught on much faster in other countries.
well if i asked you if youre single, married, divorced, widowed, separated, common law or partnered and youre a gay woman whose been with her "friend" for 10years what would you call yourself?
these are the choices most people get on forms and the terms that our hospital (that is located in ohio, hawaii, oregon, etc) uses that are federally and state acceptable.
same thing I call myself as a straight woman who has been in a 10 year relationship with my "friend"- common law. And if we've/they've been together for 10 yrs and don't live together, then I'd suggest an eighth choice and call it in denial.
people actually use the term domestic partner???
that sounds even worse than when people call their bf, gf, wife or husband their partner.
apparently the american way idea of being free has caught on much faster in other countries.
I say significant other and then stress "her" or "she". Ha.
And yeah, lots of people say that. So many people live together, own houses/condos, and have kids that aren't married. Yet it sounds ridiculous after all that to say, "Yeah this is my girlfriend."
For my own situation the only thing missing is the paper. When you say girlfriend people think of high school-type relationships.
I get what you're saying but it doesn't sound anymore ridiculous than partner sounds cold and recondite.
i'm a little confused...what does religion and marriage have to do with each other ?
Oddly enough, not a gaddamn thing. Someone needs to explain to Rick Warren et al that their marriages are all "civil unions". They can get the "blessing" of any churchy mofo they want, but without a marriage license from town hall, they ain't married.
dollar_binI heartily endorse this product and/or event 2,326 Posts
Maybe 30...
But within our lifetime.* Which is pretty crazy to think about.
(Assuming I live to make it to my late 60s)
If you believe Nate Silver:
By 2016, only a handful of states in the Deep South would vote to ban gay marriage, with Mississippi being the last one to come around in 2024.
I'll tell you how they passed prop 8 in California: they ran adds that said "if prop 8 passes, it will turn your children gay". Seriously, although the actual adds might not have been that subtle.
dollar_binI heartily endorse this product and/or event 2,326 Posts
I'll tell you how they passed prop 8 in California: they ran adds that said "if prop 8 passes, it will turn your children gay". Seriously, although the actual adds might not have been that subtle.
Oh, yeah, my point. It's only a matter of time before people have enough direct experience with gay people to realize that this is total BS. These hysterical tactics will hopefully become less and less effective. Then again, as Silver points out, the trend does not take into account a potential anti-gay backlash which would derail the regression as he sees it.
I have yet to hear a compelling argument explaining why the gays should not be allowed to marry.
I don't know about "compelling," but there are a whole bunch of complete bullshit arguments here. They also offer them in convenient video form with sweet lightening effects!
I have yet to hear a compelling argument explaining why the gays should not be allowed to marry.
I don't know about "compelling," but there are a whole bunch of complete bullshit arguments here. They also offer them in convenient video form with sweet lightening effects!
"There is a storm coming. The clouds are dark. And I am afraid."
I can't help but stifle a laugh whenever I hear this. It makes me really wonder how many people really buy any of this, as in "who are these people?"
That is their great vulnerability.
Too many people know a gay person, the most conservative Indiana bigot has a gay relative.
So the ad doesn't talk about gays, it says something like "Some people don't want to stop at marriage..." and suggests that our rights and way of life will be compromised.
Enjoy the article... it has meant a LOT to me over the last five years. That was a great day to be an American, and a resident of Massachusetts.
I, too, am a resident of MA, but my pride on the subject is conflicted, to say the least.
The people of MA did not vote for gay marriage, the legislature did. If the people were allowed to vote it would be struck down by a 2 to 1 margin, so the legislature won't let the people vote on it.
I'm glad same sex marriage is legal but two things make me uncomfortable - one is that I live in a state that would vote overwhelmingly against gay marriage, the other is that I live in a state where the will of the people (even if I don't agree with it) is denied. The legislature is essentially breaking the law by refusing to hold a referendum on the issue.
While I am happy with the result, the issue of the will of the people being denied is larger than gay marriage or any other single issue I can think of - hence my conflicted view on the situation in MA.
Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.
What is a civil union? What is a gay marriage?
It makes no difference if he is for against gay marriage. Many churches and others do gay marriages all the time. I have known many married gay couples. Their marriage came with no rights of marriage.
A civil union, as proposed by Obama, would give gay couples all the rights of marriage.
No church would be forced to perform same sex marriages even if it were legalized. Just as no church is forced to perform interracial marriages today.
So besides this one campaign sound bite what does the Obama administration think about the subject?
Support for the LGBT Community
"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."
-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007
* Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. President Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, President Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law. * Fight Workplace Discrimination: President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. The President also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. * Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights. * Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples. * Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals. * Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not. * Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, President Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. The President will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. The President also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. President Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. * Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. President Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.
If some people want to split linguistic hairs regarding civil unions and marriage that is fine with me. My one concern is for all of us to be treated equal.
Re: Obama - the true test would be whether he'd veto a bill legalizing gay marriage. Personally, I don't think he would but I also think it's more likely we'll see a Supreme Court ruling on the issue rather than a Congressional bill or constitutional amendment. Obama has already said he wants to dismantle the Defense of Marriage Act.
I have yet to hear a compelling argument explaining why the gays should not be allowed to marry.
I don't know about "compelling," but there are a whole bunch of complete bullshit arguments here. They also offer them in convenient video form with sweet lightening effects!
THE AD - starring real people
HaHa. How are you going to find 7 actors and a film production crew who are all straight?
Enjoy the article... it has meant a LOT to me over the last five years. That was a great day to be an American, and a resident of Massachusetts.
I, too, am a resident of MA, but my pride on the subject is conflicted, to say the least.
The people of MA did not vote for gay marriage, the legislature did. If the people were allowed to vote it would be struck down by a 2 to 1 margin, so the legislature won't let the people vote on it.
I'm glad same sex marriage is legal but two things make me uncomfortable - one is that I live in a state that would vote overwhelmingly against gay marriage, the other is that I live in a state where the will of the people (even if I don't agree with it) is denied. The legislature is essentially breaking the law by refusing to hold a referendum on the issue.
While I am happy with the result, the issue of the will of the people being denied is larger than gay marriage or any other single issue I can think of - hence my conflicted view on the situation in MA.
I hear what you're saying but to me, when it comes to civil rights issues, I don't really trust the "will of the people" on this. If that were the case, desegregation would have never happened and abortion would still probably be illegal in half the states. Moreover, it's not like the US was founded on the principle of a populist democracy; it's a representative democracy so it's a little hard to fully buy that when the legislature reaches a decision, it's "denying" the will of the people. Sometimes the people need to be protected from themselves! In the end, the people still have a say by voting the bums out of office.
Perhaps this is all a difference in political philosophy. From my point of view, the fact that the ERA couldn't get passed because the will of people wasn't strong enough to get it passed tells me everything I need to know about the will of the people and how much I'd trust them with my basic civil rights. That said, on the other hand, I do think that the majority of Californians will eventually vote to approve gay marriage.
I hear what you're saying but to me, when it comes to civil rights issues, I don't really trust the "will of the people" on this. If that were the case, desegregation would have never happened and abortion would still probably be illegal in half the states. Moreover, it's not like the US was founded on the principle of a populist democracy; it's a representative democracy so it's a little hard to fully buy that when the legislature reaches a decision, it's "denying" the will of the people. Sometimes the people need to be protected from themselves! In the end, the people still have a say by voting the bums out of office.
Perhaps this is all a difference in political philosophy. From my point of view, the fact that the ERA couldn't get passed because the will of people wasn't strong enough to get it passed tells me everything I need to know about the will of the people and how much I'd trust them with my basic civil rights. That said, on the other hand, I do think that the majority of Californians will eventually vote to approve gay marriage.
I hear you on the will of the people, but I don't necessarily trust the will of the government either.
In MA a petition was circulated that garnered enough signatures to force a vote according to the state constitution, so it IS a genuine case of the will of the people being illegally denied. Again, I'm happy with the result in this case, but now that the state government has set a precedent of illegally denying voters a chance to vote, where will they use it next?
I don't know if you live in Mass., but the government here has a history of doing this, and not always on issues of civil liberties, but taxes and other matters as well.
If society waited for majority opinion and legislative action, African-Americans, for example, would still be enduring the indignities of separate but equal accommodation and the other manifestations of legal, social, and political segregation. If the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge is "judicial tyranny," let there be more of it. [/b]
I also think that the fact that fire and brimstone have NOT rained down on Cape Cod since that date leads me to believe, and this may be pie-in-the-sky, that people wouldn't change the law. Frankly, I think people realize how little affect this has on their daily life, and that people of all sexual orientations should have that right.
Here's the thing: it doesn't make sense to ALWAYS choose judicial > legislative or legislative > voter referendum. I think it's all contextual and all gov't institutions have and will act poorly at some point and other times, act commendably. Isn't that the whole point of checks and balances?
Personally, if the ultimate arrival is at something positive and progressive, whether it takes 1 of the 3 paths, I'm not going to be that choosy so long as it gets there.
Double Gay Wedding, home of the the fire humantashen. I think this was my 5th gay marriage as an officiant. When you read the christian rights' arguments against gay marriage, it exactly parallels what white supremacists were saying about interracial marriage in 1965. These fools need to fall back.
Comments
And, every night, as I kiss my wife goodnight, I am forced to wonder- does someone else kissing their same-sex spouse in another bed mean I don't love my wife.
I've lost HOURS of sleep over this....
HOURS!
WHAT DOES MY MARRIAGE EVEN MEAN ANYMORE!
At least with that you get 1/2 of the deal.
I know a lesbian couple who adopted. Of course, only one of them could legally adopt, as far as I know. But I suppose that's no different than states that have default custodial laws for children born out of wedlock.
It is the best piece I've read in the press on gay marriage, and I cite it often- including the above George Wallace line.
If you are too lazy/busy/whatever to read the whole thing, this paragraph should get you there:
If society waited for majority opinion and legislative action, African-Americans, for example, would still be enduring the indignities of separate but equal accommodation and the other manifestations of legal, social, and political segregation. If the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge is "judicial tyranny," let there be more of it.[/b]
Enjoy the article... it has meant a LOT to me over the last five years. That was a great day to be an American, and a resident of Massachusetts.
The Boston Globe
Boston Globe, The (MA)
February 8, 2004
FOR MASSACHUSETTS, A CHANCE AND A CHOICE
Author: PETER J. GOMES
Edition: THIRD
Section: Op-Ed
WHEN THE PILGRIMS LANDED AT PLYMOUTH IN 1620, AMONG THE FIRST THINGS THEY DID FOR THE WELL-ORDERING OF THEIR NEW COMMONWEALTH WAS TO INSTITUTE THE DUTCH CUSTOM OF CIVIL MARRIAGE WITH WHICH THEY HAD BECOME FAMILIAR DURING THEIR LONG SOJOURN IN THE NETHERLANDS.
The Dutch made civil marriage the law of the land in 1590, and the first marriage in New England, that of Edward Winslow to the widow Susannah White, was performed on May 12, 1621, in Plymouth by Governor William Bradford, in exercise of his office as magistrate.
There would be no clergyman in Plymouth until the arrival of The Rev. Ralph Smith in 1629, but even then marriage would continue to be a civil affair, as these first Puritans opposed the English custom of clerical marriage as unscriptural. Not until 1692, when Plymouth Colony was merged into that of Massachusetts Bay, were the clergy authorized by the new province to solemnize marriages. To this day in this Commonwealth the clergy, including those of the archdiocese, solemnize marriage legally as agents of the Commonwealth and by its civil authority. Chapter 207 of the General Laws of Massachusetts tells who may perform such ceremonies.
This little bit of social and legal history should prove instructive in the current debate concerning marriage in this Commonwealth, and the controversial ruling thereon by the Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health. The petitioners did not address religious issues, and the court's ruling was not premised on religious grounds: Marriage, its definition, rights, and responsibilities, was understood here as a civil matter, as it has been since 1621.
Thus, while the legitimate interests of religious communities in what some of them regard as the sacrament of marriage are worthy of consideration, those interests must not be confused either with the civil law of the Commonwealth or the civil rights of the citizens under its constitution.
No clergy of any denomination are required to wed anyone of whose union they do not approve: There is no civil right to be married in church or with its blessing. The civil law is just that, and the distinction between it and ecclesiastical law is as important as the necessary distinction between church and state. Surely, after two years of protracted debate between church law and civil law in the child-abuse scandals we should appreciate the necessity of these distinctions.
It is to the civil rights of the citizens of Massachusetts that the Supreme Judicial Court responded in the Goodridge case, and this was no attack on the church, nor on religion. It was recognition that the social custom restricting marriage to heterosexuals, a custom long sanctioned by church and society, was no longer to be regarded as consistent with the rights of citizens under the constitution.
We have seen this before. When the courts eventually invalidated long-established laws sanctioned by church and society that forbade interracial marriage, the so-called "miscegenation" laws that obtained in many parts of this country within living memory, the courts that did this were invariably maligned as interventionist, arbitrary, and usurpatious.
Most now would agree that those laws were wrong, indeed unconstitutional, and that the courts were right in their judgments on behalf of the petitioners.
"Judicial tyranny" is a phrase usually heard from those whose prejudices have not been sustained by a court's decision. Happily, the fundamental rights of citizens in this Commonwealth and republic are in the long run defended against another form of tyranny even more dangerous, the tyranny of the majority.
Legislatures more often than not are subject to the prevailing passions of any majority that can muster sufficient votes; rarely are legislatures in the first instance instruments of social change. It was, after all, legislators who, reflecting the views of those who elected them, kept in place every oppressive law on the books until challenged by aggrieved citizens who sought relief in the courts.
If society waited for majority opinion and legislative action, African-Americans, for example, would still be enduring the indignities of separate but equal accommodation and the other manifestations of legal, social, and political segregation. If the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge is "judicial tyranny," let there be more of it.
In the forthcoming constitutional convention, the legislature will be pressured to develop a politically expedient alternative to the clear and unambiguous meaning of the Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge decision. It will be a stretch of rationality if it can do so. His excellency the governor is as misguided in his efforts to find an agreeable alternative to the court's decision as he is in seeking an error-proof justification for the reintroduction of capital punishment into this commonwealth. Surely, he has other matters with which to concern himself.
These legislative and executive maneuvers are not unlike those of such southern Democrats as Harry Flood Byrd, George Corley Wallace, and Strom Thurmond, who, after Brown v. Board of Education, which just 50 years ago mandated the end of segregation in public schools, sought to use every political and legislative means at their considerable disposal to nullify the meaning of the court's unprecedented decision. Is there anyone, save for the most retro-racist, who says now that Byrd, Wallace, and Thurmond were right and Earl Warren and his court wrong?
William Sloane Coffin, former Yale chaplain, civil rights and antiwar activist, in his most recent book defines hell as "truth seen too late." History indicts those who in time of trouble and transition choose the past over the future.
There are always conscientious people of deeply held religious conviction who, alas, on the basis of those convictions find themselves on the wrong side of history, such as those in our own Commonwealth who hanged witches in the 17th century and embraced the fugitive slave laws in the 19th century; and those who in our own time find the support of custom, reason, and faith in their prejudices against Roman Catholics, Jews, and persons of other colors and ethnicities.
This resistance to extending not special rights but civil rights to homosexuals in marriage is but the most recent instance of this dubious legacy, and is not made any more palatable or respectable today by the support given to it by visible and highly placed clergy across denominational lines, from whom we have a right to expect better.
The way to the future is always paved by extending, not restricting, liberties, especially to those who heretofore have been excluded. The health of a republic may well be determined by its capacity to adapt itself to the extension of its own privileges and responsibilities to those whom it would be easy by custom and conviction to ignore.
John Adams's Massachusetts Constitution, the oldest such document in the world, laid down the rational basis for a civil body politic whose capacious hospitality has successively embraced people and views not contemplated by the founders. The Great and General Court ought not to betray the fundamental principles of our Commonwealth's constitution by promulgating amendments that will, for the first time in our history, restrict rather than extend the rights and liberties of all of our citizens. To do so will do nothing to restore the difficult circumstances of modern marriage.
Divorce will not be halted, abuse will not be eliminated, frivolous heterosexual liaisons such as the recent publicity stunt of Britney Spears will still be lawful, and annulments will still be sought and obtained in the church courts. Nothing will be done to save marriage, and yet in the name of doing so, incalculable, retrogressive, and even punitive damage will be done to those of our fellow citizens who under the civil law crave the legitimization of their loving relationships.
The defense of marriage demands much more than legislative manipulation enshrining the status quo. The defenders of traditional marriage argue that marriage has been a heterosexual affair since "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," and at the same time they argue that this exclusively heterosexual institution is in serious trouble.
Logic would suggest that such troubles as marriage experiences cannot be laid at the door of those who have been, at least until Goodridge, rigorously excluded from it.
To extend the civil right of marriage to homosexuals will neither solve nor complicate the problems already inherent in marriage, but what it will do is permit a whole class of persons, our fellow citizens under the law heretofore irrationally deprived of a civil right, both to benefit from and participate in a valuable yet vulnerable institution which in our changing society needs all the help it can get.
The Legislature has a choice, and a chance to do the right thing. In this case, it is to do nothing. That shouldn't be so hard.
PETER J. GOMES
Peter J. Gomes is the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey Minister in the Memorial Church at Harvard University. He is an American Baptist minister.
i'm a little confused...what does religion and marriage have to do with each other ? Why exactly is this a religious issue at all ? my uncle and his second franchise are going to some church where the preacher is spouting hate about gays and obama and they are in total agreement...why does the preacher feel as if this is an issue he has any authority over ?
I'm really proud of my home state Vermont right now but we still have a long way to go.
I still think it will happen though, probably within the next 10 years actually. Lotta hard work to be done though, and older generation dying out / new generation voting to happen first.
And friggin IOWA just legalized it.
Honestly, the failure to stop Prop 8 rests with the opposition. I'm not feeling the "blame teh blacks/mormons/Rick Warren/etc" reasoning. Californians need to look in the mirror on that. A lot of folks were slacking on their macking, and only when it became apparent that the proposition might actually pass did people start motivating. Too little, too late. This too shall pass, though.
Yeah you know what's ill I actually disagree with Obama on that. ZOMG!!! I CAN HAZ POLITICAL NUANCE??!!??!!!!1
The Ignorant, Tight Ass Club
same thing I call myself as a straight woman who has been in a 10 year relationship with my "friend"- common law. And if we've/they've been together for 10 yrs and don't live together, then I'd suggest an eighth choice and call it in denial.
I get what you're saying but it doesn't sound anymore ridiculous than partner sounds cold and recondite.
Oddly enough, not a gaddamn thing. Someone needs to explain to Rick Warren et al that their marriages are all "civil unions". They can get the "blessing" of any churchy mofo they want, but without a marriage license from town hall, they ain't married.
If you believe Nate Silver:
I'm surprised nobody's linked his analysis yet:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html
I'll tell you how they passed prop 8 in California: they ran adds that said "if prop 8 passes, it will turn your children gay". Seriously, although the actual adds might not have been that subtle.
Oh, yeah, my point. It's only a matter of time before people have enough direct experience with gay people to realize that this is total BS. These hysterical tactics will hopefully become less and less effective. Then again, as Silver points out, the trend does not take into account a potential anti-gay backlash which would derail the regression as he sees it.
I don't know about "compelling," but there are a whole bunch of complete bullshit arguments here. They also offer them in convenient video form with sweet lightening effects!
THE AD - starring real people
I can't help but stifle a laugh whenever I hear this. It makes me really wonder how many people really buy any of this, as in "who are these people?"
That is their great vulnerability.
Too many people know a gay person, the most conservative Indiana bigot has a gay relative.
So the ad doesn't talk about gays, it says something like "Some people don't want to stop at marriage..." and suggests that our rights and way of life will be compromised.
They are fighting a losing battle.
What is a civil union?
What is a gay marriage?
It makes no difference if he is for against gay marriage.
Many churches and others do gay marriages all the time.
I have known many married gay couples.
Their marriage came with no rights of marriage.
A civil union, as proposed by Obama, would give gay couples all the rights of marriage.
No church would be forced to perform same sex marriages even if it were legalized.
Just as no church is forced to perform interracial marriages today.
So besides this one campaign sound bite what does the Obama administration think about the subject?
If some people want to split linguistic hairs regarding civil unions and marriage that is fine with me.
My one concern is for all of us to be treated equal.
Lies in "NOM - Gathering Storm" + Ad Auditions!!! from Joe Smoe on Vimeo.
HaHa.
How are you going to find 7 actors and a film production crew who are all straight?
I hear you on the will of the people, but I don't necessarily trust the will of the government either.
In MA a petition was circulated that garnered enough signatures to force a vote according to the state constitution, so it IS a genuine case of the will of the people being illegally denied. Again, I'm happy with the result in this case, but now that the state government has set a precedent of illegally denying voters a chance to vote, where will they use it next?
I don't know if you live in Mass., but the government here has a history of doing this, and not always on issues of civil liberties, but taxes and other matters as well.
If society waited for majority opinion and legislative action, African-Americans, for example, would still be enduring the indignities of separate but equal accommodation and the other manifestations of legal, social, and political segregation. If the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge is "judicial tyranny," let there be more of it. [/b]
I also think that the fact that fire and brimstone have NOT rained down on Cape Cod since that date leads me to believe, and this may be pie-in-the-sky, that people wouldn't change the law. Frankly, I think people realize how little affect this has on their daily life, and that people of all sexual orientations should have that right.
Personally, if the ultimate arrival is at something positive and progressive, whether it takes 1 of the 3 paths, I'm not going to be that choosy so long as it gets there.
Seriously. The irony...
I agree.