Last Wednesday, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an advisory opinion to the state legislature, clarifying a pro-gay marriage ruling from late last year. In the opinion, the court held that "civil unions" could not fulfill the constitutional requirement to allow gays to marry.
I've talked this issue with many people. The theme from many is that they generally support gay rights, but draw the line at the word "marriage." I asked them why they're drawing that line. Almost invariably, they offered a stumbling explanation, and the confused look on their faces betrayed the fact that they've neverseriously thought about it.
Here's a chance to reconsider, people. The court's advisory opinion laid out why civil unions were not adequate. According to the court, cviil unions would establish a "constitutionally inferior, and discriminatory status for same sex couples." The states constitution gives no specific reason why marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals, so forming an entirely separate system for gays would be enshrining a "separate but equal" doctirne reminiscent of segregation. And the fact that unmarried straight couples able to share health care and other civil benefits dramatically cheapens any sort of non-marriage marriage for gays If straights have two options (marriage and civil benefits), why should gaysonly have one (or none)?
Of course, no discussion of gay rights would be complete without the "R word." No, not gay Survivor All-Star Richard Hatch, but religion. Religion invariably comes up in any discussion of gay marriages. A lot of otherwise reasonable people see religious leaders taking intolerant positions, and use that as thei own personal justification to oppose gay marriage. But this is sheep-like logic.
Many people fear that if gay marriage is legalized throughout the country, their religion will be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies. However, if religions don't want to perform or recognize gay marriages that's their prerogative. Civil marriages do not require their blessing anyway. Besides , religion is often a backwar intitutoin. For example, the Catholic Church– hoping for a resurgenceof Ctholic Monarchies– didn't even endorse democracy until a few decades ago. If we waited for religion's non-sensical rules to catch up to social norms,humanity would still be sitting in East Africa asking priests for permission to make fire.
Denying gays the right to marry is institutionalized injustice. If history teaches us anything it is that such injustie can never stand. The court hit the nail on the head in its advisory opinion when it said "separate is seldom, if ever equal." Only equal is equal. I hope this great nation will recognize the equality of its gay citizens and allow them to marry.