The Phoenix Network:
About  |  Advertise
Adult  |  Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures
Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Stark Ravings  |  Talking Politics
Best of Boston 2009


Today Massachusetts, tomorrow the world
By EDITORIAL  |  June 14, 2007


We can all thank the conservatives who several years ago controlled the state legislature for the fact that Massachusetts citizens have same-sex- marriage rights.

It was the arrogance, the hubris, of conservative power players such as then–House Speaker Thomas Finneran that prevented local legislators from following Vermont’s lead in enacting humane, but still limiting, civil unions.

Historical speculation is risky business, but it is within the realm of reason to suggest that if Massachusetts had civil unions, or maybe even less comprehensive domestic partnerships, the state’s Supreme Judicial Court would not have taken the historically sweeping action it did on November 18, 2003, when it ruled that denying people of the same gender the right to marry was unconstitutional.

There was a strong backlash. Although efforts to amend the US Constitution to bar so-called gay marriage appear to be dead, 27 states have adopted similar measures.

There is, however, an important wrinkle in this picture. Despite vocal opposition to same-sex marriage in many quarters, the sentiment runs from “not opposed” to “strongly in favor” among those who are under 30. Time, in other words, is on the side of the angels.

At the moment, same-sex marriage is legal in only a handful of nations: Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Spain. Israel recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other nations, in much the same way that Rhode Island, which itself does not permit gay marriage, honors such marriages if they are performed in Massachusetts.

But marriage rights in some form — be they registered partnerships, domestic partnerships, or civil unions — are now available in 10 states (California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia) and 18 nations (Andorra, Columbia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom).

So when the right-wing nut jobs such as Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh resume raving about the Bay State’s essentially satanic lifestyle we can all safely blow them a raspberry secure in the knowledge that we’re only a little bit more broad-minded than Switzerland.

The fact of the matter is that the civilized world — defined as any place where O’Reilly and Limbaugh are recognized as loud-mouthed charlatans — appears to be slowly but surely turning what we today call marriage into something that in the future we will all recognize as civil unions.

In other words, marriage will become a purely religious union, while civil union will be what is legally binding. As more and more states and nations adopt what we today call civil unions in lieu of what we today call marriage, the easier it will be for those unions to evolve further culturally, until someday they are equivalent — legally — to marriage.

This will, of course, take years — probably decades. But while Massachusetts waits for the rest of America — and indeed the world — to catch up, we can be proud.


In Talking Politics, David Bernstein parses the winners, losers, movers, and shakers behind the scenes at the constitutional convention. Plus, revisit Bernstein's column predicting that although powerful people on Beacon Hill wanted to stop the gay-marriage ban, they didn't have the votes.

And on the Phlog, a Massachusetts State Senator explains why she switched to vote no against the ammendment.

Related: California matters, Courthouse marriage, A deadly move against same-sex marriage, More more >
  Topics: The Editorial Page , Bill O'Reilly, Culture and Lifestyle, Family Law,  More more >
  • Share:
  • RSS feed Rss
  • Email this article to a friend Email
  • Print this article Print
“We can all thank the conservatives who several years ago controlled the state legislature for the fact that Massachusetts citizens have same-sex- marriage rights.” And we can now all thank a bunch of hack politicians who did not trust the people enough to allow them to decide for themselves whether they want same-sex marriage rights or not. Never trust a politician who does not trust the people. Who won and who lost? The people lost, of course! You can see which politicians did not trust the people with their right to vote and decide for themselves at: // Remember them the next time they are up for reelection.
By Krogy on 06/14/2007 at 6:54:54
From Straight, Not Narrow: The United States was not established as a direct democracy, where people voted on everything. It is a representative democracy, where the people elect representatives to govern for them. These representative are not supposed to serve the best interests of their constituents as determined by the latest poll. Their responsibility is to serve the greater good of society, even if it goes against the will of the majority. Simply put, it is to do what is right, not what is popular. Unfortunately, many legislators are much more concerned with losing financial support and votes in the next election than serving the greater good. Just imagine if the abolition of slavery was left up to "the will of of the people" in the South. How long would it have taken public opinion to swing against slavery? At least a couple of generations, perhaps?
By Blue on 06/14/2007 at 10:48:19
Dear Krogy, The people of Massachusetts can still decide for themselves whether they want same-sex marriage rights. If you decide you don't want them, then don't marry someone of the same sex. No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex. However if you decide that you do want them, then find yourself a same-sex mate and go for it! Our legislatures trust the people to decide for themselves if they want to get married or not. The people have that right to decide for themselves. However, you Krogy do not have the right to decide for someone else. Thank goodness! The people win!
By Lena on 06/15/2007 at 12:12:06
// A political grenade By Jeff Jacoby | June 14, 2007 The true consequences of such mischief…
By Krogy on 06/15/2007 at 9:09:24
// Networks Ignore Crushing of Marriage Vote in Massachusetts The media elite don’t want the American people to know that liberals refuse to let the people vote on this crucial issue. By Robert Knight Culture and Media Institute June 15, 2007
By Krogy on 06/16/2007 at 1:10:19

Share this entry with Delicious
  •   A SELF-INFLICTED WOUND  |  May 20, 2009
    Why massive cuts to cultural spending are counterproductive
  •   DESPOT FOR ATTENTION  |  May 13, 2009
    Plus, vote for Passoni
  •   BOSTON'S SEVERIN PROBLEM  |  May 06, 2009
    Is WTKK up to measuring degrees of intolerance?
  •   THE GLOBE'S PLIGHT  |  April 29, 2009
    The Herald 's inadequacy
  •   TAX TIME?  |  April 22, 2009
    New taxes may be needed. Plus, why Massachusetts can take pride in the Serve America Act.

 See all articles by: EDITORIAL

RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 

  |  Sign In  |  Register
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
Copyright © 2009 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group