ribbon
02-06-2004, 12:09 PM
KERRY & GAY MARRIAGE
Wednesday's ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that nothing short of gay marriage is acceptable under that state's constitution brings a politically volatile issue front and center.
The court, clarifying an earlier ruling, said giving same-sex couples all the rights and benefits of marriage but calling it something else would be unacceptable.
That is, the court turned several-score centuries of venerable social practice tradition squarely on its head.
As a matter of public policy, this is not something to be applauded.
The breakdown of the American family first noted by the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan forty years ago continues.
Illegitimate births among teenage African Americans have quintupled since then; in the larger society, it stands about where it was in black America back then.
And the explosion in crime, drug use, welfare dependency is directly traceable to teen illegitimacy.
Thus, society has a stake in the traditional family structure.
And the nation knows this.
Even without Massachusetts' John Kerry (news - web sites) leading the Democratic pack, gay marriage would have become part of the presidential campaign.
As it is, the stakes are much higher.
Sen. Kerry claims, "I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts court's decision," though he does support civil unions.
Yet Kerry was one of only fourteen senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which passed overwhelmingly and was signed into law by Bill Clinton (news - web sites) in MCMIV.
DOMA states that the federal government recognizes marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."
Presumably, this means that, regardless of what Massachusetts says, no other state has to follow suit.
President Bush (news - web sites)'s position is clear: "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. [The] decision of the Massachusetts court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
That sounds close to endorsing a "defense of marriage" amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Whether the Constitution was ever meant to govern intimate human social relationships is open to question.
But that is for the future.
Kerry has to deal with the issue now. Massachusetts aside, Ohio a key swing state is about to ban nearly all state recognition of gay unions.
And it would seem that most of the country is closer to Ohio than Massachusetts on this issue.
John Kerry is going to have to navigate some seriously choppy waters.
I applaud the MA supreme court for realizng that, as in Brown vs. the board of education, the MA court said that anything less than marriage is akin to not being equal just as Brown vs the board of education said about segretation.
It looks like Kerry will likely be the democratic nominee for president, although the primaries still have a long way to go. I find his position on this too conservative. He believes that civil unions go far enough. This gives gays the same rights as married people, but falls short it calling it a marriage. I'm curious whether this belief is his own or to appeal to the more moderate democrats.
I'm not a one issue candidate and if Kerry is the candidate I will (reluctantly) vote for him. I just really prefer Dean :ohboy.
What do others think?
Wednesday's ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that nothing short of gay marriage is acceptable under that state's constitution brings a politically volatile issue front and center.
The court, clarifying an earlier ruling, said giving same-sex couples all the rights and benefits of marriage but calling it something else would be unacceptable.
That is, the court turned several-score centuries of venerable social practice tradition squarely on its head.
As a matter of public policy, this is not something to be applauded.
The breakdown of the American family first noted by the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan forty years ago continues.
Illegitimate births among teenage African Americans have quintupled since then; in the larger society, it stands about where it was in black America back then.
And the explosion in crime, drug use, welfare dependency is directly traceable to teen illegitimacy.
Thus, society has a stake in the traditional family structure.
And the nation knows this.
Even without Massachusetts' John Kerry (news - web sites) leading the Democratic pack, gay marriage would have become part of the presidential campaign.
As it is, the stakes are much higher.
Sen. Kerry claims, "I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts court's decision," though he does support civil unions.
Yet Kerry was one of only fourteen senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which passed overwhelmingly and was signed into law by Bill Clinton (news - web sites) in MCMIV.
DOMA states that the federal government recognizes marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."
Presumably, this means that, regardless of what Massachusetts says, no other state has to follow suit.
President Bush (news - web sites)'s position is clear: "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. [The] decision of the Massachusetts court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
That sounds close to endorsing a "defense of marriage" amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Whether the Constitution was ever meant to govern intimate human social relationships is open to question.
But that is for the future.
Kerry has to deal with the issue now. Massachusetts aside, Ohio a key swing state is about to ban nearly all state recognition of gay unions.
And it would seem that most of the country is closer to Ohio than Massachusetts on this issue.
John Kerry is going to have to navigate some seriously choppy waters.
I applaud the MA supreme court for realizng that, as in Brown vs. the board of education, the MA court said that anything less than marriage is akin to not being equal just as Brown vs the board of education said about segretation.
It looks like Kerry will likely be the democratic nominee for president, although the primaries still have a long way to go. I find his position on this too conservative. He believes that civil unions go far enough. This gives gays the same rights as married people, but falls short it calling it a marriage. I'm curious whether this belief is his own or to appeal to the more moderate democrats.
I'm not a one issue candidate and if Kerry is the candidate I will (reluctantly) vote for him. I just really prefer Dean :ohboy.
What do others think?