Editorial
Editorial:
Toward Equality, One State Court at a Time
Just
as OITM was going to production, the announcement came that the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court would - nearly four months after its own self-imposed
deadline had elapsed - issue its ruling on whether the state could deny
marriage licenses to same-gender couples in the Bay State.
The court's language was clear and unambiguous:
"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. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts
Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids
the creation of second-class citizens."
The decision quoted Baker v. State (1999)
and the U.S. Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision (2003). It also
referred to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal on marriage (2003).
Perhaps the tide of a thousand years of legal discrimination and oppression,
propped up by religious bigotry, is receding.
"Simply
put, the government creates civil marriage. In Massachusetts, civil marriage
is, and since pre-Colonial days has been, precisely what its name implies:
a wholly secular institution... No religious ceremony has ever been required
to validate a Massachusetts marriage."
The news was, of course, greeted with laughter
and tears of joy and amazement by many gay men and lesbians and pro-gay-marriage
activists. One lesbian I spoke to said she felt a new sense of "physical
freedom to stretch my arms a little bit," because now there will be another
state to consider living in where her same-sex relationship would be protected
and honored equally with sex-discordant marriages.
"Civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships
over transient ones... Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment
to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of
mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family."
Anybody who was at all active during the
civil unions struggle following the Baker v. State ruling also groaned
a little bit. Instead of ordering that civil marriage licenses be granted
to same-sex applicants immediately, the court delayed implementation of
its order for 180 days to allow the Massachusetts legislature - not particularly
friendly to queers - to "take appropriate action."
That action might include - as it did in
Hawaii and Alaska - amending the state's constitution to define marriage
as exclusively between a man and a woman. At the very least, we know that
the anti-gay right wing will be pouring money and energy into the Bay
State to influence the legislative outcome. And the pro-gay-marriage forces
of Massachusetts are laboring under at least two handicaps: a House speaker
and a governor who are unalterably opposed. Any constitutional amendment,
if passed in two separate legislatures and then by popular vote, would
not take effect until 2006.
"The
benefits accessible only by way of a marriage license are enormous, touching
nearly every aspect of life and death... Recognizing the right of an individual
to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity
of opposite-sex marriage..."
There are fascinating political implications:
Will Howard Dean's presidential campaign get a bounce from this ruling?
It might suggest that Dean, rather than being out in "left field," is
actually just the leading edge of a new wave of civil rights, a courageous
leader rather than a radical pandering to a vocal constituency.
Will John Kerry's campaign get some traction
in the gay and lesbian community, even though he had nothing to do with
the decision?
What will Massachusetts state Senator Cheryl
Jacques do? The recently out lesbian has just taken on the job of leading
the Human Rights Campaign, leaving the Senate at a time when she could
be instrumental in convincing her colleagues either to legislate to comply
fully with the ruling or to not act and allow the court to order the issuance
of licenses next May.
Will the repercussions of any pro-gay-marriage
action in the Massachusetts legislature include the wholesale unseating
of many lgbt allies, as it did in Vermont?
And has the Catholic Church's authority
been so discredited in the sexual abuse scandal that its influence on
this issue will be minimal? Or will this be the issue on which it decides
to rebuild?
The ruling is simple: "We
construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as
spouses, to the exclusion of all others."
It's the fallout that's hard.
Activists from Hawaii and California offered
their time, experience, and organizing expertise generously to Vermonters
working for what became civil unions, and, said one Vermonter, "didn't
charge us a dime." We need to offer our experience to our Massachusetts
kin, in time, expertise, and yes, money, to help them get one step further
in the struggle for equality.
As Associate Justice John J. Greaney wrote
in his concurring opinion: "[N]either
the mantra of tradition, nor individual conviction, can justify the perpetuation
of a hierarchy in which couples of the same sex and their families are
deemed less worthy of social and legal recognition than couples of the
opposite sex and their families.
"The plaintiffs are members of our community,
our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends... [They] volunteer in our schools,
worship beside us in our religious houses, and have children who play
with our children. We share a common humanity and participate together
in the social contract that is the foundation of our Commonwealth. Simple
principles of decency dictate that we extend to the plaintiffs, and to
their new status, full acceptance, tolerance, and respect. We should do
so because it is the right thing to do."
Euan Bear,
Editor
editor@mountainpridemedia.org