BlogWood: MT Archives

Here come the brides...

I’m one of those who feel that our government has no business sticking it’s nose into marriage. Leave it to the religious institutions to define and defend. However, since our government is very much intertwined in the sanctioning of marriage, and since it has seen fit to offer many benefits to married individuals, there’s absolutely no excuse to try and define marriage in such a way that excludes many people and deprives them of benefits that legally married individuals enjoy.

So, good for Massachusetts:

The highest court in Massachusetts declared today that the state legislature may not offer "civil union" instead of marriage for same-sex couples, in a ruling that guarantees that the first state-recognized same-sex marriages in U.S. history can take place beginning in mid-May.

By eliminating the possibility of a legislative alternative, the decision leaves opponents of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts with no option but an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as an opposite-sex institution only. A vote on the amendment in the legislature is expected Feb. 11. But even if it is approved, voters would have to ratify it in a referendum that cannot be held before 2006.

As a result, the state will be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning on May 18, the date by which the court said its original ruling must take effect.

The Bush administration is just a little pissed:

"Today's court ruling is deeply troubling," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said at a press briefing when asked about the Massachusetts action. But he dodged questions about whether President Bush would now follow through on his warning in last month's State of the Union speech that he might seek a U.S. constitutional amendment to "defend the sanctity of marriage."

"We will be reviewing the decision," McClellan said. "Activist judges continue to seek to redefine marriage by court order without regard for the will of the people." Bush cautioned last month "that if judges continue to force their arbitrary will upon the people, that the only alternative to the people would be a constitutional process," McClellan said. "And that remains his view."

What this ruling says is that Massachusetts must allow same sex couples to marry and that it must be called “marriage” and not a”civil union” or some other term. Once again, separate but equal has been declared discriminatory.