Sam Lowell comment:
Having lived in Massachusetts most of
my life and continually since 1999 the United States Supreme Court’s moment of lucidity
(juts barely) on the question of gay marriage rights the reaction here and my
own reaction was less than spectacular since here gays have had that right (and
the right to divorce) for over ten years now. All without the whole structure of
society crumbling as some feared if the traditional man-woman marriage vow was
extended to gays (or used that argument to deny basic democratic rights. That
or some religious based argument from some old time Biblical injunction). Now everybody
can marriage and have that contract’s validity recognized everywhere in the United
States, and can divorce too. Join the club (I confess to three of the heterosexual
kind). And be happy ever after, or unhappy ever after as the case may be.
Enough said. This is an important democratic and human rights victory.
****
Below is a repost of an entry from
2009 on the question where it was a closer thing whether the struggle would be successful:
*Another Small Victory For Gay Marriage Rights-Vermont
Legalizes Gay Marriage With Veto Override
Here are a few paragraphs from the
Associated Press report of April 7, 2009 on the Vermont legislative actions
that legalized gay marriage in that state.
******
MONTPELIER, Vt. — Vermont on Tuesday
became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with
a legislature's vote.
The House recorded a dramatic 100-49
vote, the minimum needed, to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto. Its vote followed
a much easier override vote in the Senate, which rebuffed the Republican
governor with a vote of 23-5.
Vermont was the first state to
legalize civil unions for same-sex couples and joins Connecticut, Massachusetts
and Iowa in giving gays the right to marry. Their approval of gay marriage came
from the courts.
Tuesday morning's legislative action
came less than a day after Douglas issued a veto message saying the bill would
not improve the lot of gay and lesbian couples because it still would not
provide them rights under federal and other states' laws....
*****
Commentary
Full Marriage (And Divorce) Rights
For Gays And Lesbians In Every State!
As I noted just last week in this
space (see “A Small Victory For Gay Marriage Rights- The Iowa Case”, dated
April 4, 2009) I have, more often than I would like, noted that on some key
democratic questions, here the question of equal access to the marriage bureau
for gays and lesbians, we get help from some unlikely sources. As always
though, we will take our small but important victories anyway we can get them.
In that case it was the Iowa Supreme Court doing yeomen’s work on this issue.
Here, in the Vermont case, it is the state legislature that has provided the
impetus.
That is indeed unusual as most
legislative action has been going in the opposite direction. This has allegedly
reflected the social opinions and political desires of the so-called ”silent
majority” of heterosexual marrieds who are assumed to feel threatened by
opening the marriage bureaus to gays and lesbians, including those here in
Massachusetts. Here, unsuccessful attempts were made to override the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s landmark decision by calling a
constitutional convention as the prologue to initiative action like
California’s successful efforts to put the issue before the voters. The Vermont
decision may not have the same political impact as the Iowa decision as it may
seem to be seen as reflecting some exotic New England quirk but the legislative
action should nevertheless not be underrated for its value as precedent. In
short, a good talking point for further actions as the struggle heads to other
states.
As I also mentioned in that Iowa
commentary in discussing this issue the core location of the struggle for the
democratic right for gays and lesbians to have access to the marriage bureaus
now appears to be in the states. The highest courts of three states
(Massachusetts and Connecticut, along with this recent Iowa case) and a now
overturned fourth, California, have held that such restrictive marriage
regulations are unconstitutional in their unequal application and do not serve
any rational governmental purpose. Although this represents a small minority
(and here is where the initiative defeat in California in November 2008 really
slowed down the momentum) there is something of a “snowball” effect to these
kinds of judicial decisions as other state supreme courts now have some
precedents to hang their hands on. But as I said then that is for later. For
now though, another small victory goes into the books. As always our slogan
remains- Full democratic rights for gays and lesbians, for the full rights of
marriage (and divorce) to all. Everywhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment