Massachusetts might see a population explosion next summer.
Nearly a week ago, four of the state's seven Supreme Judicial Court justices ruled that same-sex couples will have the right to marry.
They wrote, "For no rational reason, the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain."
This decision might have come after the consenting justices read the one about people having certain unalienable rights, like liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Apparently, though, these truths aren't self-evident. Not to President Bush. His recent threat to create an amendment making same-sex marriages illegal spoils the pursuit for a significant section of the population, "those who don't want to marry heterosexuals."
Bush doesn't even have the support of the country. According to an ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, only 38 percent of Americans support the proposed amendment. Fifty-eight percent, though, said each state should make its own laws on gay marriage.
That's what Massachusetts is trying to do. In the decision, the court gave the state legislature several options: Lawmakers can allow same-sex marriages; they can discard the type of marriage the state currently recognizes and replace it with a type of civil union that all couples "heterosexual and homosexual" can have; or, they can do nothing. If they do nothing, after 180 days, the courts will likely start granting marriage licenses to gay couples.
Meanwhile, in stark contrast, the great state of Indiana remains mired in conservative ideology. Judge S.K. Reid of Marion County Superior Court recently dismissed a lawsuit "filed by three Indiana couples" seeking to overturn a ban on gay marriages in the state.
Reid's decision was vocally supported by Micah Clark, the executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana. In an article from the Indianapolis Star's Web site, he said the suit was an attempt to ruin family values, adding, "Not everyone has a right to marry." Oh, and then he mentioned that allowing same-sex marriages will lead to bigamy, polygamy and incest, none of which happen in heterosexual relationships.
Clark's comments are absurd, speculative and offensive; they're also mere propaganda, as he and the other pro-family advocates at the AFA are desperately trying to undermine the "homosexual agenda," which seems only to be a fight for equal rights. (By the way, Clark, and the AFA chairman, Dr. Don Wildmon, are both white, middle-aged males.)
For Indiana's gay couples, Reid's decision is a setback. But Ken Falk, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union attorney, said the organization plans to appeal the ruling, and it should.
He said, "Same-sex couples in a committed relationship are no different than married couples. The time has come to recognize that."
And it's not hard to recognize that, either. Same-sex couples want equity. That's all. How this basic desire ruins the cliched and absent sanctity of marriage will never be seen.
Still, the AFA members and Bush have their soldiers, as Reid's decision arrived at a time when 55 percent of Americans believe same-sex marriages should be illegal.
But the ruling in Massachusetts opens a door. David Smith, spokesman for the Humans Rights Campaign, believes same-sex couples will see equity eventually. "To us, it is not a matter of if, but when," he said. "America has a record of coming down on the side of fairness."
Write to Allyn at aswest@bsu.edu
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
