Posted on 05/15/2005 5:59:02 AM PDT by Graybeard58
BOSTON -- Opponents saw it as a huge blow to the American family. Supporters looked on it as a moment of liberation.
The first legal gay marriages in Massachusetts were a pivotal moment in America's culture wars. A year later, the legacy is mixed -- they remain legal here, and civil unions have been legalized in neighboring Connecticut, but a dozen states were propelled to prohibit same-sex weddings.
In the past year, more than 6,000 same-sex couples have tied the knot, many rushing to exchange vows in the days and weeks that followed the May 17 start to the weddings. While the protests and rancor have died down here, the debate it stirred rages on across the country.
Activists have dug in for what they say could be a decades-long battle akin to the abortion divide. And one thing seems increasingly clear: Massachusetts could remain the country's sole safe haven for same-sex marriage for years to come.
"Massachusetts fundamentally changed the question," said Mary Bonauto, the attorney who represented the seven same-sex couples in the landmark lawsuit. "Now the question isn't whether gay and lesbian couples should be treated fairly under the law, the question is how and when."
For many states, the answer to that question seems to be 'never.'
So far, 18 states have passed constitutional amendments outlawing same-sex marriage while just one state -- Connecticut -- enacted a law legalizing civil unions.
"I think gay marriage in Massachusetts was a bridge too far for the gay activist movement. It's produced the biggest social backlash we've seen in our era," said Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy for the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family. "Gay activists will regret having pushed that limit when they did."
The story is far from over, even in Massachusetts, where the gay marriage question faces another crucial test later this year.
After the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that the state constitution guaranteed same-sex couples the right to marry -- and set May 17 as the first day the licenses could be issued -- opponents set their sights on changing the constitution.
Massachusetts lawmakers took the first step last year by passing a proposed amendment that would ban marriage but legalize civil unions.
It was patchwork solution that pleased few, and its future is uncertain. Lawmakers are expected to take a second vote later this year, which is required to put the amendment on a November 2006 ballot for voters to consider.
So far, at least 6,142 same-sex couples have married in Massachusetts.
For champions of same-sex marriage, the SJC ruling was a high-water mark in the struggle for gays and lesbians. They have compared it to the civil rights battles for blacks and women decades earlier.
For opponents, it was a textbook case of judicial activism -- a mantra for conservatives during last year's elections.
Earlier this year, Kansas became the 18th state to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Alabama, South Dakota and Tennessee plan elections next year on similar bans and more than a dozen other states are considering them.
In Connecticut, however, the Legislature legalized civil unions for same-sex couples. The law, which was signed by Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell and goes into effect in October, made Connecticut the first state to recognize same-sex civil unions without court pressure. Vermont was the first state to recognize civil unions for gay couples, but only after a court fight.
New England seems to be one of the few havens for same-sex couples.
"There was so much tumult about this and fear and panic by our opponents," said Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. "A year later the only people who seem to think about our marriages are the gay folks who got married."
But foes of gay marriage say they never predicted the fall of society -- at least not all at once -- in the wake of the ruling.
And with just 12 months of legal gay marriage behind them, both sides say they are confident of at least one thing. Time, both camps say, is on their side.
Opponents say they expect the juggernaut of constitutional amendments blocking gay marriage to keep rolling along as more people realize the threat posed to traditional marriage.
"There's nothing clearer than the fact that the American people want marriage to be left alone," Minnery said. "This issue has awakened the conservative church and that wave is still building."
But gay marriage supporters say they are on the right side of history. They say young people are more accepting of gay rights and as they age, the country as a whole will grow more tolerant.
"States like Massachusetts are doing something that's so important. They are educating the rest of the country that it is no big deal," said Cheryl Jacques, former president of the Human Rights Campaign who married her partner in August. "Once you've tasted full equality there is no going back. There is no turning this around."
Thanks to the public schools our children are learning that the queer life style is normal and an acceptable choice.
To teach children not to hate homosexuals is ok in my opinion and not to bash or harm them in any way but telling them that it is morally acceptable is not.
Actually, the education program has moved from 'morally acceptable' to 'socially and morally preferable'. Feminists and NOW successfully characterized all men as rapists and marriage as legalized slavery and wife-beating. Add the broad promotion by Demo's that Lewinskys aren't sex and the teaching that sexual urges aren't to be denied and you get mASSACHUSETTS. I heard a father brag about the 'action' his teenaged son had while touring Europe with a predominately female school choir from a public high school in a Boston suburb. It wasn't sight seeing or picture taking he was talking about.
Young people will change their views. I used to be a liberal in favor of gay marriage. Eventually I put two and two together, and realized that as a child of divorce (even a "good" divorce) that being raised by one biological and one non-biological parent is not a good thing. All my other liberal friends that are settling down and marrying are also moving to the right. Young adults will always be in favor of gay marriage because they aren't actually faving the reality of raising children.
And another way that time is on our side: as the years go by more and more research will be done on the children of gay marriages. It will be harder and harder to politically warp that research and the truth will emerge. 40 years ago liberal feminists crusading for no-fault divorce told us that divorce was not bad for children!
How many of these folks will put go through childbirth, put 3 kids through college??, watch their grandchildren grow up??
There's an extension to this marriage thing...It goes on and on. We want better for our kids. These folks want for themselves and no one else. That's NOT what marriage is about.
Big Rosie...Let's face it...She's got money and the means to promote her lifestyle. Just like the gun issue. She can have an armed guard?? but we shouldn't be allowed to have arms?? Rosie is for Rosie!!
Cheryl Jacques, former president of the Human Rights Campaign who married her partner in August, said "Once you've tasted full equality there is no going back."
It is about tearing down the institutions of marriage and even organized religion. When churches start performing same sex marriage ceremonies, sin will no longer be considered a "bad thing" by some churches.
It is one thing to permit sinners inside the church to worship, we are all sinners. It is quite another thing to celebrate their sins and claim that they aren't really sins any more.
Opponents saw it as a huge blow to the American family. Supporters looked on it as a moment of liberation.
More like job security for divorce lawyers.
The big flaw throughout this article is the constant, erroneous reference that "Massachusettes" did something, or "Massachusettes" this or "Massachusettes" that, when in truth and in fact neither the governor, nor the legislature nor the people of "Massachusettes" made gay marriage legal - it was imposed on the state by a one vote majority of a group of activist judges on the Massachusettes' top court.
This was an act that required a governor and a legislature with fortitude to say "try and enforce it".
Now, those Massachusettes' judges have a friend on a federal court that said last week that the people of Nebraska cannot adopt their recently approved state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. While for a few years now the liberals (some naively and some knowing they were lying) have been saying a federal constitutional amendment on this issue was not needed.
We do need a federal constitutional amendment and that amendment does not even have to address "gay marriage" itself, it need only say:
"All legal definitions of civil unions, whether defined as a marriage or otherwise, in these United States are defined by the states, and only by the states and only by the votes of the people of a state or by the votes of their elected representatives. The states' definitions of civil unions, marriage or otherwise, cannot be altered or abrogated by this constitution, or by any federal or state court."
This would directly place in the constitution what the DMA tried to do - leave marriage as it always has been, a matter determined independently by each state. It would also add what the DMA lacks - that the definition of marriage is not a matter for the courts to decide; and the states' definitions cannot be nullified by any court. Put marriage where it belongs, in the hands of the people and out of the hands of the courts. That is all that a constitutional amendment needs to do. If the people have that, they will, democratically take care of the rest.
So long as judges don't have the final say, tradition has a good chance in most areas of the country. If it gets to the point where the people want gay marriage/civil unions, then the Culture War is lost.
Sadly that is a possibility with the powerful opinion-forming outlets like the media and schools firmly on the side of the Left.
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
ping to self for later pingout.
But here in Connecticut it wasn't a judge that opened the flood gates.
It was the legistature, ignoring their constituents, that voted the same-sex crap on this state.
The reps up in Hartford have consistently ignored the citizens request for a referendum - denied us the right to a vote at the polls. Killed the referendum bill in committee.
God help CT, or better yet, help the few Christians left to get out quick!
Whenever enough of the citizens are upset with what their legislators do, they can, and they should get active, get organized and vote for new representatives. That is the purpose and the test of democracy. Don't simply complain, do something.
Unfortunately when I go to church and discuss with others the same-sex civil union/marriage issue, most are CINOs. Catholics in name only. They don't/won't see how it can affect them and don't care. To many CTitz are here for the high paying jobs and don't have any morals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.