Another small step

It couldn't be clearer.

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," four justices wrote. "For no rational reason the marriage laws of the commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain. The bill would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits."

So declared the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in an advisory opinion requested by the state legislature as to whether or not a "civil unions" bill would be enough to meet the Court's requirement in a November decision that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights of marriage as straight couples. Wish I'd made that argument when the decision was first issued. Oh, wait, I did.

Homophobia is still a pervasive illness in this country, as witnessed by the fact that 38 states and the federal government bar the recognition of any gay marriages in other jurisdictions. That is, a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts would not be considered married in those 38 states or by the feds. The fact that this undoes the long-accepted, legally well-established principle of reciprocity (that principle being the reason why, for example, you don't need a separate driver's license for every state you drive through) is proof enough of the power of prejudice.

Some in Massachusetts are now pushing for a constitutional amendment to enshrine their fear in fundamental law. Those of us here have to be prepared to push back.

But in the meantime, I think I'm going to be attending a wedding this spring. I'm looking forward to it.

Footnote: George Bush, looking to shore up his right wing, called marriage "a sacred institution between a man and a woman." And just where is this definition established? In custom and tradition? That won't fly. As I and many others have noted, interracial and inter-religious marriages were frowned on the same way not that long ago. Would anyone seriously propose a constitutional amendment banning interracial marriage?

So I ask again, where is this definition established? What's that you say? The Bible (like 1 Corinthians 7:2)? Yeah, well, who gives a damn about that old separation of church and state nonsense, anyway.