You are viewing a read-only archive of the Blogs.Harvard network. Learn more.
6 February 2004

Not much new to say about marriage in Mass.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court pronounced correctly the other
day when it noted that gay civil unions are not marriage and that the
Massachusetts and US Constitutions regard “separate but equal” as being
actually “separate and NOT equal.”

I’ve already written about this before, so I won’t say much new here, except the following.

The creation of a whole group of people who are legally married under
at least one state’s laws — even if it only occurs for a couple of
years before conservatives can get a constitutional amendment on the
ballot — means that the genie is out of the bottle.  You can’t
unmarry those people, because the state has no authority to dissolve a
legal contract, so long as the contract it legal. (Let’s remember that
that’s what marriage is in the state: a contract.  It’s only
“sacred” in the context of a church or religious tradition.  So
all this nonsense that the governor and the president make about
preserving the “sacred” nature of tradition makes me wonder whether
they are running for priest or politician….)

But if there’s a move to take it away, BF and I will move to City Hall
pretty darn quickly, so as to be in the protected class.  For us,
of course, the more important marriage (in most of the sense of what
“marriage” means) will be the church marriage, but that will be
interesting to figure out as this is a Roman Catholic and Anglican

Posted in Politicks on 6 February 2004 at 3:26 pm by Nate