Austin Rocky Horror Picture Show Cast

Queerios!

Eat them before they eat you!
* FAQ    * Search
* Login   * Register



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 5:20 am 
Goddess Lindsay
Goddess Lindsay
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:08 am
Posts: 636
Location: 30° 18' N 97° 42' W
Massachusetts moves to strengthen marriage

Ellen Goodman - Washington Post Writers Group

11.20.03 - BOSTON -- Now that we've arrived at the wedding, can we take a minute to describe how the laws walked us down this aisle? After all, the laws emerged from two different backgrounds and went down two separate paths. Then they came together before the justice of the peace, as groom and groom, bride and bride.

On Tuesday, the Massachusetts high court ruled that gay couples have the right to marry. In the same decision, the justices redefined both gay rights and marriage. And yet for all the hoorays and all the boos, the decision may be as evolutionary as it is historic.

Consider first the path of gay rights. For generations, the state labeled some lovers as criminals. When the last laws against sodomy finally fell this year, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dissented. He argued that if moral disapproval wasn't enough to make sodomy illegal, nothing was: "What justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples ... ?"

He was bitter ... and right. The statutes that made homosexuals outlaws had to end before they could become in-laws.

Meanwhile, marriage was on its own winding path. Historically, a woman who entered the institution lost her legal identity at the altar. Until 20 years ago a husband was still exempt from rape charges in New York, because a wife didn't have the right to say no.

In 1965, the state lost the power to control sex within marriage when the Supreme Court overturned a Connecticut ban on selling contraceptives to couples. In 1967, the state lost its power to define the race of the person you could marry when the court overruled the last laws banning interracial marriage. And gradually throughout the 1970s, the state turned over the right to decide why a marriage could end. A wave of no-fault divorce laws gave that decision to the people.

Each one of these changes -- ending the subordination of wives, ending race restrictions, decoupling marriage from decisions about children, sex and divorce -- set off alarm bells. But marriage today is less about an institution and more about a relationship, less about the state and more about individuals.

The evolution of gay rights and marriage laws now merge into the definition of marriage written by the Massachusetts court: "We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."

In an elegant decision, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, who grew up fighting apartheid in her native South Africa, echoed the reasoning that permitted interracial marriages: "The right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice."

Marshall wrote that "civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones." But what's sexual orientation got to do with it? The decision carefully lists the reasons to ban gay marriage and finds them unreasonable.

Fertility? Why, the state allows people who aren't fertile, indeed people on their deathbeds, to marry. For the raising of children? Why, if anything, marriage would help gay couples with children, like many plaintiffs in this case. By the end, the only reason left to ban gay marriage was moral disapproval -- or what's also known as prejudice. But the Massachusetts Constitution, ruled the court, "forbids the creation of second-class citizens."

This case doesn't end the argument any more than the decisions about interracial marriage or a wife's place ended those debates. The state Legislature has 180 days but not much wiggle room to get its in marriage laws in line. There is talk already of a state constitutional amendment. And if couples marry in Massachusetts and seek recognition elsewhere, the issue could go to the Supreme Court.

Gay marriage may indeed end up at the center of the culture war in the 2004 campaign. Or it may simply mark the moment in a long social change.

It's been a lengthy trip down the aisle. But a friend who applauded this decision added: "I don't think I would have said that five years ago." In the past year, Bride's magazine featured two brides. The love that "dared not speak its name" now announces it in the newspaper. If this is a wedge issue, it seems to mostly divide generations.

"The plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage," writes Justice Marshall. Marriage vows are not diminished but enlarged in a redefinition that seems both new and familiar: "Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family."

In the end, this case may say less about the fragility of marriage than about its endurance.

(c) 2003, Washington Post Writers Group

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article ... emID=16022

_________________
"When you expose your stupidity, you give yourself the chance to have it caught, corrected and replaced with wisdom."
This is my business ladies and gentlemen. And business is good.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:01 pm 
Transylvanian
Transylvanian
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 1:26 pm
Posts: 125
Location: Mrrr?
Yea!! *dance dance dance* Thank you for posting that, Lindsay. It's so well-written and brings me joy.

Margaux

_________________
I am a confused little kitten, take me home and feed me tuna.

Elwood P. Dowd: Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, "In this world, Elwood, you must be" -- she always called me Elwood -- "In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. And you may quote me.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron