Massachusetts High Court rules same-sex couples entitled to marry

[East Street Trader]

It is not daft to question whether the term "marriage" is appropriate in the case of a homosexual or lesbian couple.

It would be daft to think that a commited long term sexual relationship between a man and a woman is more to be valued or based on any more secure emotional footing than one between two men or two women.

But that does not mean there is no difference. Because the heterosexual relationship may - in fact usually will - include the possibility that the relationship will result in a family being founded, that is the birth of children.

I can readily understand why a homosexual or lesbian couple might want the same practical and legal arrangements to apply to them as apply to a married couple. Acknowledging that living together in a stable relationship results in financial and practical affairs getting so inextricable jumbled together that it requires special rules to regulate matters of property and other rights between the couple makes just as much sense whatever the sexual orientation of the couple may be.

But that aspiration can be met by the civil union idea.

Whetreas the notion of marriage is linked to the idea of family and procreation.

I can only very vaguely intuit what a homosexual or lesbian couple might feel about that. The fact that they sometimes wish to adopt suggests they may have a hankering to procreate and to found a family. But this is not something much articulated. The main preocupations of such couples seem to lie elsewhere.

If the desire of homosexual or lesbian couples to be able to use the term "married" is rooted in nothing other than a desire to conform then I don't think that is a very strong point. Because it would just be pretence. There is a difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual/lesbian couples. That difference does not give rise to the right or requirement for them to be treated differently. But reserving use of the term "marriage" to a union which embraces the potential for a family to be founded does not, in my eyes, add up to anything which is adverse to anyone.

To that extent, the court ruling as explained in this thread, seems to me to be based on a silly proposition. To apply different terminology to different things is not dangerous per se. It is treating one person worse than another for no good reason that is demonstrably damaging.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sava
The Bachelor, the Bachelorette, Joe Millionaire, My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance... Britney Spears... 50% of hetero marriages ending in divorce...

THAT SANCTITY!

[Adam Smith]

Activist Judges?

I think EST is spot on.

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion. A bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls short of marriage, makes for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."

The Massachusetts court explicitly invoked the Brown vs. Board of Education language in its ruling. But there are some very important ways in which the process of reaching this ruling differs from that of Brown.

First, in the Brown case, there was extensive evidence that the two separate systems were in fact not equal. Was there any evidence in the Massachusetts case that the practical effect of "marriage" differed from "civil union" in any tangible way?

Second, Chief Justice Warren was acutely aware that there were strong views on both sides of the Brown decision, and that any decision rendered would have a broad impact on American society. He was therefore at great pains to fashion a decision which could be reached unanimously. HERE is a link to a recent National Public Radio series on how the Brown decision was reached.) The 4-3 decision in one of the nations most liberal states suggests that the majority justices made no such attempt at consensus or comity in a case they knew would have national implications.

Third, this morning's Washington Post termed the 4-3 decision "resounding". Would they, or anyone who disagreed with the decision, use the same term to describe the one vote margin to not require a recount in Bush vs Gore?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MrFun
The "sanctity of marriage" BS is just extremely annoying -- WHAT sanctity??

Sanctity

The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
Something considered sacred.


While marriage is a battered institution and many treat it in a cavalier fashion my marriage is the most important thing to me, something "sacred". However thats irrelevant to this issue . . .

I see no possible threat to my marriage in people of whatever gender, committing to each other for the long term. In fact, a gay or lesbian couple that stay together for a lifetime, are much more in accordance with my ideas of what marriage should be than say , the Brittany Spears example. BUt no matter what any of these people do, it doesn't affect my marriage one little bit.

A lot of people get hung up on the labels and perhaps homosexual couples need to have their unions called " marriages" in order to feel they have achieved equality on the issue. Personally, I don't care what the label is, as long as it involves the full range of rights and responsibilities, and if it lessened opposition, it might be a smart strategic move for any people lobbying on this issue to accept or even advocate something that was a marriage but had some different label.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

EST good post.

You have hit on one key element - family.

Hence the reason homosexuals are so adamant to have their same sex unions officially recognized as Marriage. Once that step has been accomplished rulings such as in Florida will be more likely to be seen as discrimantory wrt adoption selection criteria.

Off topic. Any particular reason why you adopt Homosexual to describe Male/male and Lesbian to describe Female/female? Isn't homosexual all encompassing?

[Atahualpa]

I think Bush oversteps here.

"Sanctity" is something unique to religion. He should not mess with the seperation of state and religion.

Besides I fail to see how homosexual marriage affects heterosexual marriage in a negative way.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Flubber


Sanctity

The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
Something considered sacred.


While marriage is a battered institution and many treat it in a cavalier fashion my marriage is the most important thing to me, something "sacred". However thats irrelevant to this issue . . .

I see no possible threat to my marriage in people of whatever gender, committing to each other for the long term. In fact, a gay or lesbian couple that stay together for a lifetime, are much more in accordance with my ideas of what marriage should be than say , the Brittany Spears example. BUt no matter what any of these people do, it doesn't affect my marriage one little bit.

A lot of people get hung up on the labels and perhaps homosexual couples need to have their unions called " marriages" in order to feel they have achieved equality on the issue. Personally, I don't care what the label is, as long as it involves the full range of rights and responsibilities, and if it lessened opposition, it might be a smart strategic move for any people lobbying on this issue to accept or even advocate something that was a marriage but had some different label.

Flubber: smartass who ignores the fact that my question was rhetorical, in that I already knew the technical definition


But for the rest of your post.

[chequita guevara]

For all you claiming EST has a good post, you're being fooled. A family doesn't have to have children. As soon as people chose to have a life together, they are creating a family. Marriage is a legal recognition of the creation of a family. My wife and I have no children, but we are a family. My friends L and J cannot get married, but they are a family.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Che,

EST did have a good point in that he framed the arguement around family.

In that respect both you and I agree.

(Did someone just see Jesus return)

Whoops I just realized that my former post didn't address those issues. Furshlurginer lost post retyped. grrrr....


In any event I agree with Che. (Hey Jesus how you doin?)

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MrFun


Flubber: smartass who ignores the fact that my question was rhetorical, in that I already knew the technical definition


But for the rest of your post.

Sorry man-- just was feeling smartassy

[Az]

But don't forget how much luck you have in Netherlands. I mean, even your most rotten, racist and arseholish politician in general (Pim Fortuyn) was gay!

Pim Fortuyn wasn't racist.

[gunkulator]

Bravo EST!

The state really has no business sanctioning mine or any other adults' personal relationships. However, when it comes to children, the state has a special interest in their well-being. Those relationships that are likely to result in procreation are therefore sanctioned and encouraged. We call this marriage.

Along with a few perks, there are penalities. To insure finanical stability for the family, the state discourages sexual relationships outside of one's spouse. As any divorced parent can confirm, supporting more than one family is taxing and stressful. Since hetero sex is the only way to produce children, the state has an interest in insuring the stability of potential parents before the sex occurs. Failure to follow the rules is grounds for divorce, with unfavorable finacial consequences for the cheating spouse.

Contrast this with homosexual sex. No possibility of children means the state has no interest if you want to have sex with one or multiple partners. As long as adults are the only involved parties, the gov't should stay out of it.

Now if homosexuals want to adopt children and raise them as a couple, I say let them. And let them gain all the benefits of marriage too, along with all the penalties.

With all due respect to Che and others, families with children are fundamentally different from those without. The state only has an interest in those with children.

[chequita guevara]

The state can encourage children just fine without oppresing childless couples. There is nothing in the marriage contract that inherently is superior for raising children. Children are served just as well by an unmarried cohabitating two-parent family as a married one. Unmarried families with children get the same legal perks as married ones. This isn't an argument against state recognition of gay marriage.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Moreover my original post before it got lost spoke to creation of family and how gay marriage fill a needed void to create 2 loving parent homes (albeit same sex). Although certain states believe this is harmful to child rearing there is no evidence pro or con and as such to make the assumption appears unfounded. But we again digress over to the Florida thread.

Point being framing marriage around creation of family works for both sides of the arguement. Moreover it completely emphasizes a single facet of the relationship and is not the defining purpose of marriage IMO.

[Az]

Personally, I think that the procreation reason is complete crap, since gay people are only a very small percent of society. Civil unions are better IMO, but I don't really care either way, to be honest, just let the gay people have their rights.