Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures  |  Adult
Boston  |  Portland  |  Providence
Flashbacks  |  Letters  |  Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  The Editorial Page  |  This Just In


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.

  • California matters
    Massachusetts may have had gay marriage first, but California changes everything. Are Obama and Clinton listening?
  • A deadly move against same-sex marriage
    The politics may be even more complicated than you think, but the issue is easy to understand
  • Power hungry?
    The most powerful people on Beacon Hill want to stop the gay-marriage ban, but don’t have the votes
  • More more >
  Topics: The Editorial Page , Culture and Lifestyle , Gay and Lesbian Relationships , Same-Sex Marriage ,  More more >
  • Share:
  • RSS feed Rss
  • Email this article to a friend Email
  • Print this article Print

election special
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   EXPLOSIVELY BAD  |  October 09, 2008
    The potential for even more public disillusionment and anger is huge as events outstrip the nation’s political imagination
  •   DEBATABLE  |  September 24, 2008
    Can Obama show grit? Will he connect? Can McCain stop lying? Will he remember?
  •   BAD CRAZINESS  |  September 17, 2008
    Wall Street’s meltdown is more dangerous than realized. McCain is clueless, but does Obama recognize the root of the problem?
  •   THE RIGHT STUFF  |  September 10, 2008
    Senator John Kerry has it; challenger Ed O’Reilly doesn’t. Plus, Sarah Palin’s Hannah Montana equation.
  •   PALIN: THE PLAIN TRUTH  |  September 03, 2008
    Don’t be fooled by the Tina Fey styling, McCain’s vice-presidential pick is a menace

 See all articles by: EDITORIAL

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

Featured Articles in Music Features:
Saturday, October 11, 2008  |  Sign In  |  Register
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
Copyright © 2008 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group