MASSACHUSETTS & MARRIAGE
The Supreme Court of Massachusetts set in motion a number of probabilities with their 4-3 decision Tuesday on the issue of gay marriage. At first glance, it would seem to be a resounding victory for the seven same-sex couples who sued for the right to marry under Massachusetts state law–and it is. But, it is in the ripple effects that this ruling will have in the debate between factions for and against gay marriage–and the bigger issue of acceptance of homosexuality as a country–that the greater victories are to be had.

In their decision, the Justice’s majority opinion states the following:

01. “The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry,” according to the majority opinion. “We conclude that it may not.”

02. “[Denying gay couples the right to marry] is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law.“

03. “Whether and whom to marry, how to express sexual intimacy, and whether and how to establish a family — these are among the most basic of every individual’s liberty and due process rights–and central to personal freedom and security is the assurance that the laws will apply equally to persons in similar situations. “

04. “Barred access to the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community’s most rewarding and cherished institutions.“

While the governor and many political leaders have decried the outcome, the court’s ruling does impact Massachusetts in several ways. The state legislature is given six months to rewrite the state’s marriage laws for the benefit of gay couples. While it is very likely that a constitutional ammendment will be sought to overturn the ruling, such an effort could not be voted upon by Massachusetts citizens until 2006. Therefore, the legistaure could write law legalizing same-sex marriage or it could do nothing and let the court’s ruling go into effect. Outside of Massachusetts there is the likelihood of a Supreme Court challenge to the ruling, as well as continued pressure by President Bush and Congress to limit the definition of marriage to a man and woman.

Particularly intersting about the wording of the Massachusetts ruling is the fact that some legal scholars believe the ruling applies strictly to marriage and that creating a separate class of domestic union–such as civil unions–would not be acceptable. This, of course, would differentiate the ruling from the Vermont case that resulted in the adoption of civil unions.

MARRIAGE & ME
While I’ve never had a particularly strong opinion one way or the other on the issue of gay marriage, I have always maintained that two people who wish to commit to marriage should have the right to do so. Unfortunately, many times the issue of marriage is so deeply rooted with religious beliefs that it is hard to separate the legal definition–and the rights that come with it–from the idea of the religious definition.

I’ve never understood the argument that same-sex marriage would “undermine” the institution of marriage. As each marriage is a separate entity unto itself, I’m not sure I see the logic. If heterosexual couples choose to have an open marriage, commit adultery or divorce–are they undermining the institution and religious law of marriage. If they are, why is no one outraged by this? The fact is that in today’s society, the act of sex is separate from the act of marriage. You can no longer fairly argue that marriage is sacrosanct to having children. Whether a person or government chooses to recognize the committment of two loving individuals, you have to make a case that is fair and just for that union to not receive the benefits and protections offered to every other union of heterosexual individuals. In the end, it becomes a question of fairness, dignity and justice.

While it is my desire to find a relationship based on a long-term committment, I’m not sure that I personally would ever need the validation of using the word marriage to describe my love and union. Yet, I do see all of the practical issues that same-sex marriage advocates fight for: the right to make medical decisions, the right to military benefits, the right to beneficiary of insurances and retirements, et.al. So many rights that are given simply by virture of engaging in heterosexual union and finding recognition in law. In that respect, the rights of marriage should be afforded to persons of any sexual orientation.

Make no doubt that a fight has been won. But, the battle is far from over.

ISN’T IT IRONIC?
01. Michael Jackson. Allegations of child molestation. Release date of greatest hits album.
02. George W. Bush in England. Still making speeches that the war in Iraq is “necessary” and “justified”.
03. Paris Hilton. Socialite. Sex video scandal. Fox television show premiere.
04. George Michael. Accuses Sony Music of slavery. Goes to court and loses. Signs new contract–with Sony Music.