As I'm sure you all heard, the Mass. Courts ruled this week that the Mass. constitution does not prohibit same sex marriages from being recognized. This is problemattic because traditionally if you are married in one state, you are married in all 50 states. So a person from, say, Texas could go to Mass. and get married and come back and demand all the benifits of marriage from the state of Texas.
This is being seen as a boon for President Bush, as it will be an issue during next years campaign. Both sides will presumably try to uphold traditional values while respecting the rights of homosexuals. As Jonah Goldberg puts it, in his latest article, "It's a funny stalemate. The Republicans can't afford to be seen as too "anti-gay," lest the Democrats demagogue them with tolerant suburban voters, and Democrats can't afford to be seen as too "pro-gay" lest the GOP demagogue them in Southern and rural states."
He also comments on the idea of civil unions, making some sense in my mind. "One of the reasons I favor civil unions is that I believe they would forestall gay marriage while at the same time doing right by gays and society on a host of public policy issues.
Though a great many conservatives disagree, civil unions strike me as the right balance between principle and tolerance. Marriage has a specific meaning: a union of a man and a woman. But the state shouldn't bar gays or anyone else from naming heirs or sharing property as they see fit."
We'll see what happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment