This entry was published at least two years ago (originally posted on November 18, 2003). Since that time the information may have become outdated or my beliefs may have changed (in general, assume a more open and liberal current viewpoint). A fuller disclaimer is available.
CNN: Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional:
Massachusetts’ highest court ruled Tuesday that the state cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry and ordered the state’s lawmakers to devise changes in the law within six months.
Google News’ collection of related stories can be found here.
The key points of the ruling, as outlined in an e-mail I received this morning from the Human Rights Campaign:
- Same sex couples in Massachusetts who choose to obtain a civil marriage license will now be able to:
- Visit each other in the hospital, without question;
- Make important health care and financial decisions for each other;
- Have mutual obligations to provide support for each other;
- File joint state tax returns, and have the burden and advantages of the state tax law for married couples; and
- Receive hundreds of other protections under state law.
- Churches and other religious institutions will not have to recognize or perform ceremonies for these civil marriages. This ruling is not about religion; it’s about the civil responsibilities and protections afforded through a government-issued civil marriage license.
- By operation of law, all married couples should be extended the more than 1,000 federal protections and responsibilities administered at the federal level. These rights include the application of federal inheritance laws, social security benefits, the right to unpaid leave to care for a family member, the ability to file joint tax return, and the like. However, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act purports to discriminate against same-sex married couples and deny them these protections. Because no state has recognized civil marriage for same-sex couples in the past, this law has not yet been challenged in court.
- Other states and some businesses may legally recognize the civil marriages of same-sex couples performed in Massachusetts the same way they treat those of opposite-sex couples.
[Update:]{.underline}
Kirsten looks at some of the potential pitfalls. Pessimist. ;)
Sorry, I know it’s going to sound dumb, but I was hoping that the Massachusetts court would uphold the ban. Now I’m hoping that their legislature will be dicks about it and make bad decisions that don’t uphold the court’s ruling.
I hope this because I want a gay marriage case to go before the Supreme court. Small victories are nice, but these little wins in small states on the East coast really piss me off – because it really doesn’t make a huge impact on the fate of other same-sex couples’ attempts. Until the Defense of Marriage Act is overturned, and gay marriage (or civil unions, if that’s how it has to be) is legal nationwide, the constitutional rights of GLBT people will still be trampled.
Even something that made it to the appeals circuit would make me happy! As for being a pessimist, I’m sure the Human Rights Campaign is overjoyed, but the Massachusetts state government doesn’t look too keen on righting this. Pardon the semi-unpolitically-correct pun, but I really hope the state legislature doesn’t fuck them up the ass on this one. With the DOMA leaving the decision of the extent of rights up to the state, the Massachusetts state government really doesn’t seem to be beholden to any real overarching law. I wouldn’t be surprised if they created the most strict, difficult to obtain form of civil union as their response to the decision – the minimum needed to make the court satisfied.
blhogging sorry. :)
Rightly or wrongly these things take time.
Equal rights for women took years.
Equal rights for black people took years…Or should I say? Is still taking years?
I don’t expect or can I imagine years and years of open hostility going away overnight, regardless of whatever law was passed or any court decision handed down.
All groups got where they are by years and years of hard work, most of it being a combination of changing the attitudes of the young people and waiting for the older generation to die off.
Each generation being a little more comfortable with things than the last. Go back and look at the climate, the public opinion if you will during the fight for the right for women to vote.
Look at the difference at the difference in public opinion from 1960 to now on the right’s of blacks. While I wouldn’t begin to suggest that the fight is over and won. I can state that progress has been made. Real progress.
I see the exact same thing when I look at gay rights. I’m old enough to see the pattern; I know gays are headed in the right direction. Is the fight over? Not on your life. But progress is made.
You can change the face of a glacier one ice cube at a time. And I believe that this ruling is a fairly large chunk of ice. Will it alter the course of the glacier? No not really. But it did change the face, and the glacier will never be the same again….
This whole myth about gays not having equal rights cracks me up. Sure, gays can’t marry members of the same sex, but neither can straight people, right? So there is no discrimination, so don’t misrepresent this as an “equal rights” issue.
However, if Massachusetts wants to allow same-sex marriages, there’s nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says they can’t. For that matter, there’s nothing that prohibits polygamy. There’s nothing that says a guy can’t marry his sister, or a poodle, or a lampost, or a worn out TV Guide. In fact, there’s nothing at all in the Constitution regarding marriage rights. That means it’s up to the states to decide what sort of unions they will recognize.
Throwing this up to the Supreme Court in the hopes that they’ll write something into the Constitution that isn’t there will only serve to further weaken the document’s relevance. If you want Constitutional protection for gay marriage, then get an amendment.
It’s ironic, isn’t it, that the same people who complain about the US PATRIOT Act taking liberties with the Constitution have no problem letting some judge muddy its meaning?
“This whole myth about gays not having equal rights cracks me up”
“so don’t misrepresent this as an “equal rights” issue.”
So let me see if I have this correctly? You’re saying that if you live with a woman for five years and you have two children together. (but you’re not married) And your girlfriend gets sick or has an accident and goes to the hospital that you should not be allowed to visit her in the hospital because you’re not family? If she should die from her illness or accident. One of her relatives (or the state) will enter your home and take her belongings and you have no say about what is taken or where it goes because you’re not family (you’re just a friend).
I’m not talking about gay rights.
I’m talking about human rights. (or are you suggesting gays aren’t human)
I have no problem supporting a Court that forces a state to treat all people equally.
Nor do I have a problem fighting a law (US PATRIOT) or ruling that seeks to remove rights from people.
“Throwing this up to the Supreme Court in the hopes that they’ll write something into the Constitution that isn’t there will only serve to further weaken the document’s relevance.”
Are you saying everytime the Supreme Court makes a ruling they rewrite the Constitution? That’s a new one on me.
The Supreme Court (our nations highest court) is a hand picked group of men and women. (picked by both Rep and Dem presidents) Who’s only purpose is to protect and defend the laws of the United States. They do NOT write the laws, they enforce them.
They did NOT write the Constitution they enforce it.
These people (The Supreme Court) have spent their lives studing the laws of the United States and the Constitution of United States. Are you saying you know something they don’t?
So you disagree with them, so what. I disagree with them on occasion as well.
The court has said this law is poorly written. You have 180 days to rewrite it.
What’s the problem?
Oh I get it.
Its hard to write an unconstitutional law in 180 days.
“I’m not talking about gay rights.
I’m talking about human rights. (or are you suggesting gays aren’t human)”
Homosexuals are human beings, but they are humans with a mental-social disease. God has never made anyone gay. There is no “gay gene” as the press would like you to believe. If anyone took the time to do some research, you would see that scientists can’t prove their is a “gay gene”.
Homosexuality is a mental condition that gets strengthened by the reinforcement of the habit. Same-sex marriage endorses this sickness of the mind. As a society, by us saying its okay to marry one of the same gender, we are only weakening our society as a whole.
More or less, its about the dignity and purity of the society as a whole than the actual people involved. Gay people will be with gays regardless if there is the green light to get married or not.
“Homosexuals are human beings, but they are humans with a mental-social disease. God has never made anyone gay.”
That is quite possibly the most ignorant statement I have heard in a very long time. Homosexuality occurs in all aspects of nature – watching Animal Planet or the Discovery Channel for any amount of time will reveal that.
As for a gay gene, scientists can’t prove that there’s a gene that causes freckles yet either, but as we lesrn more amount human DNA these genes are gradually uncovered, just because they can’t prove it now doesn’t mean they can’t prove it later.
Legalizing same-sex marriage will NOT “weaken” our society. Society will plod along in much the same way that it always has adapting and changing as it ALWAYS has. Everyone is always bitching about the ills of modern society. Modern society isn’t much different from societies in the past (that modern day society evolved from). Look back to ancient Rome, Renaissance Italy, Paris, London, Medieval Turkey. The problems haven’t changed only technology and the scenery have. To say that homosexual marriage will weaken society is a foolish statement.
“More or less, its about the dignity and purity of the society as a whole than the actual people involved. Gay people will be with gays regardless if there is the green light to get married or not.”
Wow, replace the word society with race and you sound exactly like a hard-core Nazi. We’re not talking about indiviuals – many individuals who make up a good-sized part of our community AND society. Heterosexuals make up that community and society, too as do Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians, Russians, Christians, Hindus, Pagans, Mechanics, Anorexics, People with Downs-Syndrome, the list goes on. Heterosexuals would be together whether they were allowed to get married or not either, so that isn’t a very good statement. To deny someone who merely happens to be homosexual a basic HUMAN right such as marriage is nothing more than HYPOCRISY.
The fact is that you are ignorant to the basic functions of biology and how procreation among male and female is a necessity to carry on a species. Only a moron would subject themselves to the belief that homosexuality is okay and doesn’t cause a hindrance to society.
Sorry, it isn’t a basic human right. God did not make anyone a homosexual. The act of being homosexual is a behavior that is acquired through experience. Anyone with a decent background in psychology would know what I am speaking about. Life experiences mold a person.
Here is an essay I recently wrote:
http://www.americanswami.com/main/2003/11/the_sin_of_homo.html
I also recommend reading the articles on this website for a clearer view of how homosexuality is not an inborn trait:
http://www.narth.com/
Homosexual marriage will NOT hinder the birth rate in the world. It’s ridiculous to assume so. Homosexual marriage or not, it hasn’t hindered procreation one bit, as evidenced by the 5 BILLION + humans that are living on this planet today, and there are no signs of THAT number decreasing anytime soon and is, in fact, increasing.
“God did not make anyone a homosexual”
I don’t think any mortal living OR dead came make ANY presumptions on what God said/made/did/created. You or I have absolutely no authority to do so. For one to make that presumption has the mental-social disease.
There are many a psychologist who would disagree with you despite your generalizations that “anyone” with a background in psychology would agree with you. You can make all the generalizations and blanket statements you want, but it doesn’t make it the truth, nor do your “essays”.
As for life experiences molding a person, yes they do. And in some cases of homosexuality, it might play a large partin their lifestyle, but in most cases not.
Actually, I think BlmaeBush has a point. This whole idea of “government decides what a marriage is” is ridiculous.
“In fact, there’s nothing at all in the Constitution regarding marriage rights. That means it’s up to the states to decide what sort of unions they will recognize.”
No, it’s up to the people making the union. Geddit?
“Mankind would be wiped off the face of the planet forever! Thank the Lord that this devastating outcome hasn’t happened yet, and let us pray that it never will.” (The Sin Of Homosexuality)
Eh, I don’t know swami dude, you kinda leave me hoping the opposite. Your essay leaves me unconvinced that there is a god, that “he’s” Christ, that there is no such thing as predetermined homosexuality–and oh, the whole procreation part is ridiculous. There are enough people in the world, thanks.
“Anyone with a decent background in psychology would know what I am speaking about.”
I just stopped by the American Psychological Association web site
( http://www.apa.org/)
I would say these people have a decent background in psychology wouldn’t you?
Here’s what I found on their web site.
(quote)
The term “reparative therapy” refers to psychotherapy aimed at eliminating homosexual desires and is used by people who do not think homosexuality is one variation within human sexual orientation, but rather still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder. The most important fact about “reparative therapy,” also sometimes known as “conversion” therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all major health and mental health professions.
The American Academy of Pediatrics
The American Counseling Association
The American Psychiatric Association
The American Psychological Association
The National Association of School Psychologists
and the National Association of Social Workers
Have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a “cure.”
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association and defining the standard of the field, does not include homosexuality as a mental disorder.
The American Counseling Association has adopted a resolution that states that it: opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation; and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based on ignorance or unfounded beliefs
(end quote)
I didn’t say it they did.
First off, thanks to everyone for keeping this (mostly) civil.
While my initial post didn’t say much in the way of my feelings on the ruling, merely pointing out the news stories about it, anyone who’s read my weblog somewhat regularly should be fairly sure of my views. In case that’s unclear at all, though, Tim and Stacy have done quite well at expressing what I would have if I’d been paying more attention to this thread over the past day.
Swami — as Tim pointed out in his last post, you should probably do a bit more research about your statement that “anyone with a decent background in psychology would know what I am speaking about.” For further clarification, though, here’s a direct link to the American Psychology Association’s policy statement on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (all emphasis mine):
You may not condone, agree with, support, or even like the thought of homosexual conduct, and you have every right to hold whatever beliefs you want to. But to even try to defend that by claiming that homosexuals are victims of “a mental-social disease” or that it is merely some Pavolvian “mental condition that gets strengthened by the reinforcement of the habit” is ignorant and offensive.
As to whether or not homosexuality is a “sin”, I’d merely like to refer you to this post of mine from August for some of my thoughts and discussion there (though, in a nutshell, I ain’t buyin’ it).
I would also like to add, [as if I haven’t said enough already] that if one thinks that sex is purely for the act of procreation – then that person needs to get out more. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink – know what I mean?
Twenty years after homosexuality was removed from the psychiatric manual of mental disorders (yes, it was once classified as a mental disorder and still should be, because it is a mental disease), Dr. Robert L. Spitzer has changed his mind and is now advocating that homosexuality can be changed or cured, with the publishing of his most recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417
If he is advocating that homosexuality can be cured, then in other words, he is saying it is a disease.
For those who don’t know about this Doctor, he was the one that was originally campaigning to have homosexuality removed from the psychiatric manual. He gave it such a big push that it was finally removed in 1973.
Why the change all of a sudden?
And why has he done research and proven that homosexuality can be cured?
What prompted him to investigate further into something he once firmly believed to be a normal aspect of human life?
For the other psychologists out there, I don’t really care about them. They are simply too afraid to stick their necks out there on such a controversial topic. When it comes to something being wrong, it is wrong, and someone needs to speak up and let them know it is wrong. Otherwise, the world will continue to allow evil things to happen.
So, you will side with the lone psychologist vs. thousands of other psychologists around the world over and hundreds of supporting studies that say otherwise.
I believe I’m am now convinced you have absolutely NO CLUE what you are talking about. You are simply, in one word a BIGOT. End of story.
I think we’re feeding the trolls, but when has that ever stopped me?
(fwiw, I’m invoking Godwin’s Law. By Announcing that Swami is A Bigot, we’ve ended all rational discussion, just as if he’d been called a Fascist.)
As for siding with a single philosopher, you did know that Freud renounced all of his earlier works on Oedipal theories at the end of his carreer, right? Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.
My opinion is that Swami is wrong, but until I manage to obtain omnicience and enlightenment myself, I guess I’ll just have to wonder about other peoples motiviations and follow Dr. Phil’s advice to fix myself before fixing others.
Did I mention there’s a Buddhist temple around the corner from my new house? :)
While I found a number of sources for back issues of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, they are all either locked behind access-only accounts, or require payment to download the .pdf of the full article (“Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation”). The abstract of the article is available online, however.
Now, because I can’t read the full article, and because I’m certainly no psychologist, I’m somewhat limited in what response I can give.
First off, nowhere in the abstract is the relatively loaded word “cure” used. Rather, he seems to be saying that homosexual tendencies may be able to be changed. It’s also known that one can change other behaviors through psychological treatment, many of which are not seen as diseases to be cured, merely behaviors that the subject would like to change for one reason or another. I see nothing in this abstract to indicate that Dr. Spitzer sees homosexuality as a disease to be cured. He may, of course, but if so, that’s not evident in this abstract.
While I get the impression that you pose your three questions rhetorically, I would prefer to see actual answers to those (though your phrasing, especially of the second, is still very loaded).
As Stacy said, your condemnation of nearly the entire psychological community based upon this one recent study by one doctor (one which, incidentally, was apparently not exactly universally accepted by his peers from the look of the abstract of the next article in that issue of the ASR, Peer Commentaries on Spitzer) is foolish at best.
From everything I’ve seen of what is currently known to both psychology and science, homosexuality is most definitely a biological trait (and not just in humans). There is certainly a fair amount of controversy to be sure, but the current evidence definitely seems to point to that conclusion.
Your opinion that homosexuality is wrong is just that — an opinion. It’s an opinion that is shared by many, to be sure, but it also disputed by many, including myself. You can “speak up and let [us] know it is wrong,” but we can also speak up and tell you that we disagree. I would appreciate it if, should you decide to continue posting on this matter, you would endeavor to do it in a far less confrontational manner than you have shown so far. If you would like to continue this as a discussion (“Here is what I believe, here is why, and now I will listen to what you have to say before responding intelligently,”) than please do so. If, however, you intend to continue to merely tell us that you’re right, we’re wrong, and that’s all there is to it, than you are more than welcome to leave.
“Other states and some businesses may legally recognize the civil marriages of same-sex couples performed in Massachusetts the same way they treat those of opposite-sex couples.”
Short comment on this:
“Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” (Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Sections 1 and 2). As referenced above, the States are required, by the Constitution, to recognize those marriages which are deemed legal in their State of origin.
On a side note, Hawaii has legally allowed same sex marriages for years. This matter was a great controversy about 5-10 years ago; but not much publicized given that Hawaii is not (geographically) close enough to the Constinental Union, and therefore, this news was not of great benefit to the media.
Hawaii: Reciprocal Beneficiaries
Hawaii’s Reciprocal Beneficiaries law provides some marriage-like benefits to residents who register. Any two people can register, as long as they are over 18 and are not permitted to marry. Couples who sign up gain some of the rights and benefits granted by the state to married couples, including hospital visitation rights, the ability to sue for wrongful death, and property and inheritance rights.