Wednesday, November 19, 2003

Now, to the Knots: As you mention, Flyer, more to come on this gay marriage decision. I'm skeptical on the an amendment to the state constitution. It takes a lot of support, sustained over a period of years. I think there may be a bit of trial and error (and litigation) as the legislature tries to walk through this, and a compromise may be possible.

I should follow up on my comments from yesterday. I'm wholly enthusiastic and happy for the gays in Massachusetts, who -- even if they can't go out and get hitched today -- have won a significant battle. That said, I am disappointed in a legal/political sense: Jon Rauch hits the legal disappointments here, where he says:

By contrast, judicial imposition could turn gay marriage into a poster child for judicial arrogance. I'm not just talking about a gay-bashing backlash from the Christian right. If the courts short-circuit the political process, how will we gay couples ever convince the public of the full legitimacy of our marriages? We'll always be, in some sense, wards of the court.
I think he's right; the honest way to do this is through legislation -- and it's coming before long. Further, as I've said before, that legislation should not be aimed at opening up government-sanctioned civil marriage rights to homosexuals; rather it should be legislation logically flowing from the simple question: What business is it of the government who I choose to marry?

No comments: