2004-02-04 - 3:05 p.m.

So today the Massachusetts state Supreme Court issued an opinion that according to the Constitution of that state, same sex couples have the same right to �Marriage� as traditional couples, and that Civil Unions are inadequate under that document.

Although the Right wing knee jerkers have promised to change the Massachusetts Constitution, they can�t do that until 2006 at the earliest, and even then it�s not a guarantee (Massachusetts folk are notoriously liberal, and open minded, but they�re also notoriously Catholic as well, so it�s a tossup kinda thing), so for the next 24 months or so, at least, homosexual couples can get married in Massachusetts, and demand to enjoy the same benefits as heterosexual ones. (well, starting in June sometime, I guess, if I�m reading right).

Conservatives have raised Holy Hell about �Destroying the institution of Marriage�, of course, and vowed hellfire and brimstone and plagues of locusts and such upon Boston and Gamorrah.

But really, who�s being hurt?

Nothing in the Court decision says that the Roman Catholic Church (or the Baptist Church down the street, or the Jewish Synagouge around the corner) has to perform those ceremonies and give them �Holy Blessing�. And nothing the MA Courts could do could say that. We have separation of Church and State in this Country, at least we used to.

All this decision says is that the *legal* benefits which are bestowed upon two people when they step into a County Clerk�s office and say �We are committed to each other legally�, as well as the responsibilities of that statement, must be bestowed regardless of whether the two people involved are male and female, or male and male, or female and female.

�But the State has a legal right to encourage procreationally positive relationships�. Hmm�then I guess Rhiannon and I shouldn�t have been eligible (since we can�t have children, at least so says medical science atm). Neither should any post-menopausal female, or any 70 year old man, or anyone who ever had a vasectomy, or who was born without functioning organs.

That�s outrageous to deny those people the pleasures of lifelong companionship, you say? I agree. So let them be married, in the eyes of the law. That doesn�t require them to be married in the eyes of any particular Church.

Funny thing, noone seems to have bitched that Rhiannon and I weren�t �Married� by any Church , and couldn�t be by many denominations(since she was married previously�yeah, she could probably get an annulment, but she hasn�t). No one has said we are any less committed to each other, nor that if I am in the hospital ICU, she shouldn�t be able to visit me, nor that we should be able to commingle assets.

Being �Married� gives you legal benefits, and imposes legal obligations. If I die, Rhiannon automatically inherits everything (unless I have a will stating otherwise, and actually, even then there is a large amount of stuff I *can�t* give away without her consent). Rhiannon is assumed to be the person most knowledgeable about my medical wishes, so if I am in a coma, she is the one who has to make the decision to terminate �Heroic measures�. Rhiannon is able to talk to creditors of mine about debts, likewise I am able to talk to hers. We are able to go into Joint Debt easily (damned near too easily�but that�s another rant). We are able to commingle our household income into one checking account and pay taxes as a unit, rather than as two individuals. Rhiannon cannot be coerced into testifying against me in a legal matter (other than certain exceptions).

Explain to me for a moment how *any* of those things are bad things to allow Fred and John (or Mary and Ellen) to have. They could, even without �Marriage� set the vast majority of them up with the help of a lawyer, and noone has bitched.

�But God made marriage between a Man and a Woman�. Yeah, okay, so says your holy book. There�s other ones out there that don�t say that at all. You can�t prove yours is right (nor can I prove it�s wrong, �Faith� denies �Proof�). Those sorts of issues are not the place for Government to judge. Down that path lies burning witches at the stake and stoning people for premarital sex.

At the same time, I *completely* and *totally* support the rights of various religious communities to declare �No, we will NOT marry gay people�. Fine, it is your right to exclude them if you wish. You�re a private organization, with constitutionally guaranteed freedom to do that sort of thing. However, why does your Dogmatic belief require that the *other* Church around the corner must believe the same?

The best solution of all would be for the government to get completely out of defining consensual relationships between adults able to make choices. And yes, that means that in my mind, the triad over there is on just as firm ground as Rhi and I are, as are the �Master and slave� folks playing bondage games over there, or the 100 person orgy folks over there. They�re all adults, they made the choice to be there and do that, the government should have no place saying they can�t, so long as everyone involved knew what was going on in advance, consented with knowledge, can withdraw that consent at any time, and isn�t forcing it on folks who don�t want to be involved.

Where�s the *real* harm in that? �Moral harm� is not your place to judge, that�s God�s place, so says your book. I mean *real* harm. It isn�t there.

So that Court decision was a good thing. I hope it stands.

�

previous - next

�