Say Anything Blog

From Fox News:

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled (pdf) that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state Constitution, but stopped short of immediately allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law.

Massachusetts may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry," the court ruled, according to a posting on its Web site.

The court is giving the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this decision," which means the decision will not take affect until then.

...

Republican Gov. Mitt Romney criticizing the ruling, saying: "Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that makes that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman."

...

"They said, basically, to the Legislature, 'we really think this is your job,'" Wendy Murphy, a former sex crimes prosecutor and victims advocate, told Fox News, adding that the court took an activist role in its decision but backed up enough to give the Legislature the authority to make same-sex marriages legal.

To me this is a very positive ruling for two reasons:

• The courts acknowledged that gay marriage is an issue that is going to have to be dealt with.


• The court recognized the legislature's need to deal with the issue.

Gay marriage is going to happen and it should be embraced and regulated by our government just like straight marriage. We should never stop a union like marriage from happening between two consenting adults. Granted, the additional civil case load on our courts will more than likely increase due to same-sex couples splitting up, but its still a right that must be allowed to the gay community. The right of companionship and marriage is one of the most basic human rights.

I should also note that I'm not implying that gay couples are more likely to divorce but only that some of them will likely divorce and it will add to the existing civil case load.

It is also refreshing to see a judge who is not willing to create new laws from the bench. He has done the right thing by putting the ball in the court of the state legislature. Laws must be written concerning gay marriage. There are a lot of issues to to consider like whether or not the married gay couples should be allowed to adopt children and how the taxes of the couples will be handled.

Once our state legislatures have sorted out the marriage issue I think that gay adoption is going to be next. This is an issue where I'm torn. On one hand there are thousands of children in need of a good home and the majority of these gay couples could undobtedly meet the emotional and fiscal responsiblities that come with a child. Where I see a problem happening is when the child gets a little older and starts to develop its own sexual identity.

We hear a lot of talk about how hard it is to grow up gay in a straight household, I cannot imagine how it would be to grow up straight in a gay household. And lets not forget junior high, as if any kid needs another reason to be made fun of there. Kids can be crule.

Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe it wouldn't even be an issue. I really haven't seen any convincing empirical data favoring gay adoption or against it. Not many children have been adopted by gay parents so any data that is out there is sketchy, at best.

I plan on supporting the gay marriage movement and will be encouraging my law makers to resolve this issue as soon as possible. Hopefully more information will make itself available regarding the adoption issue so that when the time comes to make a decision in that regard the right one is made.