Another small victory in the struggle

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to marry, ruling Tuesday that government attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right.

In a 4-3 ruling, the court gave the Massachusetts state Legislature six months to rewrite the state's marriage laws for the benefit of gay couples.

So reports CNN on November 18. I expect lawmakers are now going to rush rush rush to introduce and push through an amendment to the state constitution that will specifically bar same-sex marriages. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has already asserted that marriage is a "special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman." Of course he also muttered the expected bromides: "We must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples," but just what does that mean? What are "appropriate benefits" and how do they differ from benefits available to straight couples? Or is this, as I believe, just more "separate but equal" baloney rather than advocacy of civil rights?

I invite everyone to ask themselves how they would feel if instead of same-sex marriage the issue was the old anti-miscegenation laws and Romney had said "We must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to mixed-race couples but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for people of the same race?"

At one time, such arguments were actually common and supported, as nowadays opposition to same-sex marriage often is, with Bible quotes. But eventually and at painful length, the absurdity of the argument became clear. So will it, I expect, be with Romney's statement. It may still be a ways off, but it will come and this Court victory is just one small step towards that.

Okay, so maybe my hope isn't entirely gone.