"The New Abortion"

If any readers were wondering why I failed to post yesterday, it was due mostly to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's sweeping ruling, which basically mandates Cities and Towns in the Bay State to issue marriage lincenses to same-sex couples in 180 days (or six months from today).

According legal experts, such as the future head of Human Rights Campaign (a gay-rights advocacy group based in Washington DC) Massachusetts State Senator Cheryl Jacques, the legislature really can do nothing to stop this ruling until 2006 at the earliest. Under the Commonwealth's constitution, two consecutive sessions of both houses of the legislature must overwhelmingly agree to do a DOMA change to the constitution, AND the voters must then, two years later, approve the change. Which means in effect, the change can't come until 2006 at the earliest, 3 years after the law goes into effect.

On a political side, I think this helps Republicans more than it helps Democrats and hurts both. Our mailboxes have been overflowing from Red States demading we change the constition in MA, and relatively few calls (5 at most) have come in from real constituents. While GOPers may look insensitve and biggoted for passing a DOMA, the upside for rallying their base is huge. Whereas, the Democrats are trying to to seem beholdant to these gay rights advocates, and all of the serious Presidential candidates have said in effect, "yes Civil Unions, no Gay Marriage."

This a wedge issue, which will be used to further divide the country like Abortion has done, between the Gore America and Bush America and our so-called 50-50 nation. This is going to get ugly.

How do I stand? I think every state should get to decide on the marriage issue, but I think nationally there needs to be a law that gives same sex couples the same rights to insurance, inheritance, hospital visitation etc that hetrosexual couples get. I get the "separate but not equal" argument against civil unions but I feel uncomfortable with shoving down marriage into people's throats that vehemitly oppose it. Let every state and church decide what they want to do marriage-wise but rights wise, there should be no difference between hetro- and homosexual couples, in my view. Also, I am concerned about the court deciding this and the state legislature being unwilling to take action in this regard. Just goes to show that legislators are cowards in general. I would have rather the legislature decided this, but at least statewide polling says that the decision will be supported (except for those who are over 65 and over evangelical christians, surprise surprise) in the high 50s.

Keep those emails coming, Texas!