The ruling does clarify and amplify the exact fault line of the issue among most of the public now...whether the word "marriage" should apply to same-sex unions. If the loudest activists continue to insist that it must be marriage or nothing, then people who see marriage as a religious institution will continue to be offended, and the issue will stay unpleasantly contentious.

What sometimes gets overlooked is how far the issue has shifted in a short time. Five years ago, it was barely on the radar. Now a majority of the public is OK with civil unions (but not if they are called marriages). This is an enormous step toward tolerance. The great common sense of the American middle ground shows in this as in other issues how silly and destructive extremism on both sides often looks.

Of course I understand the sentiment/argument that gays shouldn't accept a second-class version of heterosexual rights. But if the alternative is nearly every state passing constitutional amendments banning gay unions, maybe we could all try to agree on civil unions as a good step in the right direction.

The right's use of the issue as a divisive voter-turnout gimmick is despicable, of course, but its effectiveness on that score seems to be winding down.

Maybe we could just decide that a gay marriage is equal to three-fifths of a straight marriage.

The strident insistence of gay activists that the word 'marriage' has to be used for gay unions is the only thing keeping this issue alive. They give the fundie loons the ammunition they need to stir people up and make this issue divisive. If they just left well enough alone and accepted equal rights in the form of civil unions then most of the issues they are concerned about would disappear. And they could call the uniona marriages and no one would bat an eye.

Makes me wonder if professional activists on both sides aren't just being pigheaded to keep the issue alive so they will have jobs.

Lump......

I couldn't have said it better myself.


Your analysis of the issue is spot on.

Kudo to you!

The strident insistence of gay activists that the word 'marriage' has to be used for gay unions is the only thing keeping this issue alive. They give the fundie loons the ammunition they need to stir people up and make this issue divisive. If they just left well enough alone and accepted equal rights in the form of civil unions then most of the issues they are concerned about would disappear. And they could call the uniona marriages and no one would bat an eye.

BALONEY! If a gay couple is in a "union" outside of the United States, other governments and/or municipalities may not recognize the union. It's as simple as that. Other cultures recognize the term "marriage". This is an argument that many gay activists are making including Rosie O'Donnell (oh shut up Right Wingers). Bottom line is that we are ENTITLED to equal protection under the law, period. Anything less than complete and equal protection is unacceptable any longer.

Silas, I think your concern is not realistic. Other countries will recognize civil unions as whatever we say they are and they'll call them marriages and not worry about it.

And I'm not sure the government really has the right to determine what is and is not a marriage. IMO it's a separation of church and state issue. The government shouldn't call ANYTHING a marriage. It's not a legal term, it's a religious term and therefore when they sanctify marriage they're violating the constitution. Give the word marriage back exclusively to the churches and let everyone get civil unions if they want them.

For that matter, let's get the government out of the marriage/union business alltogether and let people be joined up contractually however they want, with or without a church involved.

Dave

Silas, how likely do you think it is other countries will recognize marriages between two men or two women conducted in other countries, if they don't already recognize such marriages in their own?

Why do you think they would be more likely to accept such marriages then they would civil unions, which exist in most developed countries that don't have a Napoleonic code of law, and some that do?

I think the real issue is that people who have chosen to be in civil unions should have the same legal and economic rights as people who have chosen to follow through on the cultural and religious institution of marriage. David is right: determining what marriage is is something that should be handed back to individual religious groups.

Of course, that means gay people who wanted to get married might have to go United - the most boring Christians ever. Snooze.

The European countries that have directly addressed this have mostly gone the 'civil unions' route.

Silas speaks for a lot of people. I just think it's time to ratchet down the confrontation level on this. If there are people who for religious reasons are genuinely offended and upset about calling gay unions 'marriages,' and if 'civil unions' confer the financial and familial rights we are looking for, then why continue to be so obstinate, to make it a fight?

A generation from now, this will have been settled. No one on either side was agitated about this before the 2003 MA court ruling. But now people on both sides of the issue have dug in their heels - while failing to acknowledge what a major step has already been taken toward equality with the majority of folks even in red states now ready to accept civil unions.

It does seem bizarre to me when they are on the brink of victory to throw that victory away for a relatively meaningless word.

Dave

To be blunt, I really don't give a rat's ass what society or the government says. I'm going to be married to my partner and that's the end of that. If we have to fight all the way to the Supreme Court, I'm prepared for the fight. We're entitled to equal protection under the Constitution, period.

That's great, Silas, but I don't see the connection. You should probably give a rat's ass about what the government says, since that's what'll protect whatever common law or civil union is belatedly extended to gay partners.

But the government won't protect marriage. How could it? Marriage isn't about protection in any degree that exceeds the legal protections inherent in a fair civil union. This is why, if marriage is really your thing, you should definitely give a rat's ass what society thinks. Because marriage is a personal oath and a celebration, a public ceremony to demonstrate your love and commitment to society and ask for that ceremony to be respected by society. If this wasn't what marriage was for, people wouldn't need it - they could just tell each other how great they each are and promise not to fuck off.

The problem is, only some groups in American society are ready to respect this sort of commitment, and all the legislation in the world won't change that. You could take it all the way to the Supreme Court to legally overrule the majority of the American population who won't respect your union as a marriage, but their perceptions won't change.

If I were you, I'd demonstrate my love and concern for my partner by lobbying for a civil union that would get him the full LEGAL benefits he'd be able to get if we had been a legally committed straight couple. Then I'd find some boring-ass United Minister, have a ceremony - and be married in the eyes of the people who'd accept us as a married couple.

THEN I'd stop giving a rat's ass about the rest.

My partner and I were wed by a minister without the benefit of a marriage license way back in '92. What good did it do us? In our hearts we're married but that matters not a whit to the insurance companies. If 'civil unions' do actually grant us the same legal rights as married hets, bring 'em on! But I doubt it's true. Name alone would mean very little, if we could still inherit, bury, visit and make decisions regarding care in the hospital, raise and/or adopt kids, co-own cars, et cetera. How could anyone reasonably believe they can tell us we don't deserve these rights?

I'd say you hit the nail dead on the head, Cheyenne.

Dave

Trouble is that the married hetero folk have secured for themselves special privilege in the law and financially, such as tax breaks and constitutional protection regarding testimony against a spouse. It's part of the Hetero Agenda. Do those privileges ALL extend to every couple under the notion of Civil Union?

There's a hetero agenda? What is it? Why didn't I get the briefing on it when I signed up?

As far as I'm concerned, for civil unions to be meaningful they have to be exactly the same for gay or hetero couples. In fact, the same unions should apply to both groups. Then marriage should be left for the churches to deal with.

As far as I know, except for a couple of weird state laws which failed, the general idea with civil unions is full legal equivalency regardless of sexual orientation.

Dave

Judging by comments in this thread, I would say significant progress has been made in the acceptance of homosexual relationships.