March 30, 2004 - 10:26 a.m.

One Step Back

First of all, today's Dork Tower is pretty amusing. And the sidebar with the Bi-Curious George cartoon is also worth a look. I love geeky people!

Yesterday the Massachusetts Legislature approved a constitutional ammendment that would allow for civil unions for gay partners but ban gay marriage. Grrr. This is only the first of many steps in the process of actually ammending the state's constitution, but I am still disappointed. At least this version allows for civil unions, which is the only reason it passed, I think, but I have issues with the distinction. I think the incorporation of civil unions is just a way for conservatives to look like they are giving gays equal rights, but actually denying them true equality. It's akin to saying to people, "You can live here, but you can't be citizens."

If you allow homosexual couples to enter into civil unions, supposedly with all the rights of marriage, why not let them marry? It smacks of wanting to maintain a hierarchy to me. Some people have argued that marriage is a holy union, and some consider homosexuality to be immoral such that the two are mutually exclusive. Well, if marriage is such a holy union, maybe the state shouldn't have anything to do with it. If the state only recognized civil unions regardless of a couple's sexual orientation, I would be fine with that. People could still get "married" in a church if they wanted, and it would be up to the church to determine who they allow to be married there not the government. But I don't think there is any chance of removing marriage, even if only in language, from state control. That being the case, I won't be satisfied until straight and gay couples are issued marriage licenses.

One aspect of the marriage debate that occurred to me recently was an additional reason the ultra-conservatives might be afraid of homosexuals obtaining the right to marry. For ages the far right has pointed to the supposed promiscuity and immorality of gays in their efforts to deny them rights. With the possibility of marriage, many homosexual couples could settle into the same sort of stable, monogamous, respectable family structure that straight couples get to enjoy. That could take a good bit of the force out of the immorality argument. I have no idea if this rationale is fueling any of the debate, but it seems plausible.

At least for now, the State Attorney General is refusing to put a stay on the Supreme Court's order to start issuing marriage licenses on May 17th. Let's hope that the licenses get issued, and the general public loses a little of its fervor once a substantial number of gays are already married. I am wondering what will happen if licenses are issued, and in a few years the ammendment goes through (which seems fairly unlikely to me - time seems likely to favor the liberal side of the debate). Would those marriages formed in the interim stand?

Anyway, I am sweaty from another session at the gym, so I must go shower.

today's project: barring veto from B, I think we'll go to the farm today. Maybe there'll be some spring l

Did you know? I am so sick of those goofy Texas commercials.

consectuive workout days: 2

�

flutter back - fly ahead