This is going to be one HELL of a debate
Yeah I know my journal has been pretty bad lately. Thanks to everybody who didn't delete me from their friends list because I haven't been updating. I'll try to do a better job from now on.
Anyway, I've been thinking a lot about the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage. Well, to be exact, it actually required the legislature to change the laws to make gay marriage legal. I guess it's not too surprising that the politicians don't want to do it, and there's been talk of amending the Massachusetts constitution to prevent the Court's decision from taking effect.
This has already sparked an intense national debate, because states are required to respect the rules and laws of other states. So once the laws in Massachusetts are changed, anyone can go there and get married, and the marriage would have to be respected anywhere in the US. Obviously, this has huge national implications.
One piece of commentary really surprised me. It was by David Brooks, who's the newly-hired "token conservative" on the New York Times editorial page. In his weekly commentary on the PBS NewsHour, Brooks said about the Massachusetts law: "I support marriage. I think it's the true conservative position." Now what a profound thing to say.... that conservatives should embrace the stability, unity, and commitment that comes with marriage, whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals. It's just so stunningly obvious that society should want two committed people to be bound together legally! I can't believe society would make a statement that Americans prefer promiscuity to stable relationships under the law -- it makes no sense at all.
This is going to be an interesting debate as the 2004 election approaches. None of the candidates want to discuss the question of gay marriage. Recent polls show that although most Americans are opposed to gay marriage, they don't want the US Constitution to be changed to prohibit such marriages. While I'm sure the Republicans will talk a lot about a constitutional amendment, I don't expect it to go anywhere for fear of alienating the critical middle-of-the-road voters.
So where does this leave us? In legal limbo for a while, I think. I'm really curious about the distinction between "civil unions" vs. "gay marriage." Are these identical, as far as you're concerned? If "civil unions" are politically more easy to achieve, should gays abandon the struggle for legal recognition of actual marriage? (For a religious person, marriage would clearly be preferable. But is there a secular as well as a religious distinction?) Some gays make the point that marriage is an outdated, paternalistic institution and shouldn't be the gay community's objective at all. I disagree with that view. In an ideal world, rights would be available equally no matter what a person's sexual preference happens to be.
I'd love to hear everybody's comments about this.
Anyway, I've been thinking a lot about the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage. Well, to be exact, it actually required the legislature to change the laws to make gay marriage legal. I guess it's not too surprising that the politicians don't want to do it, and there's been talk of amending the Massachusetts constitution to prevent the Court's decision from taking effect.
This has already sparked an intense national debate, because states are required to respect the rules and laws of other states. So once the laws in Massachusetts are changed, anyone can go there and get married, and the marriage would have to be respected anywhere in the US. Obviously, this has huge national implications.
One piece of commentary really surprised me. It was by David Brooks, who's the newly-hired "token conservative" on the New York Times editorial page. In his weekly commentary on the PBS NewsHour, Brooks said about the Massachusetts law: "I support marriage. I think it's the true conservative position." Now what a profound thing to say.... that conservatives should embrace the stability, unity, and commitment that comes with marriage, whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals. It's just so stunningly obvious that society should want two committed people to be bound together legally! I can't believe society would make a statement that Americans prefer promiscuity to stable relationships under the law -- it makes no sense at all.
This is going to be an interesting debate as the 2004 election approaches. None of the candidates want to discuss the question of gay marriage. Recent polls show that although most Americans are opposed to gay marriage, they don't want the US Constitution to be changed to prohibit such marriages. While I'm sure the Republicans will talk a lot about a constitutional amendment, I don't expect it to go anywhere for fear of alienating the critical middle-of-the-road voters.
So where does this leave us? In legal limbo for a while, I think. I'm really curious about the distinction between "civil unions" vs. "gay marriage." Are these identical, as far as you're concerned? If "civil unions" are politically more easy to achieve, should gays abandon the struggle for legal recognition of actual marriage? (For a religious person, marriage would clearly be preferable. But is there a secular as well as a religious distinction?) Some gays make the point that marriage is an outdated, paternalistic institution and shouldn't be the gay community's objective at all. I disagree with that view. In an ideal world, rights would be available equally no matter what a person's sexual preference happens to be.
I'd love to hear everybody's comments about this.