Massachusetts court upholds same-sex marriage. Bush: 'Marriage ... between a man and a woman'
[I]f judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.
- George W. Bush, 1.20.04
Of all of the problems worthy of the expending of resources, of all the difficult issues facing our nation, HOW does the issue of gay marriage even make it onto the radar screen? You would think that the government would have a pronounced interest in the promotion and maintenance of healthy, stable relationships, right? Whether those relationships are gay or straight seem to me to be completely beside the point- unless, of course, you're a Conservative Republican who owes his election to a narrow-minded and judgemental constituency.
Underscoring its original ruling last November, Massachusetts' highest court said Wednesday that only full marriage rights for gay couples, not civil unions, would conform to the state's constitution.
The ruling sets the stage for Massachusetts later this year to likely become the first state in the nation to allow same-sex marriages.
In a statement released Wednesday night, President Bush said the ruling was "deeply troubling.
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said. "If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
In his State of the Union address January 20, the president stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment that would ban marriages for gay and lesbian couples, as social conservative groups had hoped.
I saw a bumper sticker not that long ago that summed up my feelings pretty adequately: "If you're opposed to gay marriage, don't have one." Social Conservatives are certaintly entitled to their opinion, but who are they to decide what is or is not an acceptable relationship? Are they arrogant enough to think that their version of happiness is a "one-size-fits-all" solution"? Apparently so.
The bottom line from where I sit is really quite simple: people deserve to find a relationship that provides them with happiness and fulfillment. Period. How is a happy, stable relationship NOT in the interest of the state? What possible interest does anyone have in preventing people from finding happiness and stability- in whatever form that may assume?
It's been said that the essence of Social Conservatism and Fundamentalist Christianity is the fear that someone, somewhere is having fun- and damnit, that's GOT to stop. If you do not believe in gay marriage, there is, of course, no reason for you to engage in it. That, of course, in no way gives you the right to stand in the way of someone who happens not to believe as you do. Get over yourself. This is America, where we supposedly value diversity- that is, as long as you're a Social Conservative, for whom diversity can be summed up in one question- "Paper or plastic??"
