Reply #96: Ten years ago... [View All]

[Boston Critic]

...I would have argued civil unions were the way to go for precisely the reasons we're seeing now: people getting all bent out of shape over the *word* "marriage." (When someone argues that the government has to protect the "sacred" bond of marriage, they're saying they have no argument. Governments have no business protecting the "sacredness" of anything.)

That all changed when my state legalized gay marriage. It made civil unions the default "moderate" position instead of the radical change it would have been a decade ago. And now it's too late to turn back. The issue has been joined and though it will be painful for people in the short term, in the long term gay marriage will become accepted and future generations will wonder what all the fuss was about, just as we now look quizzically at anti-miscegenation laws.

Legally speaking there's one big difference. Under the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause, states must accept the legal actions of other states. If you're married in New York, New Mexico has to recognize it, and vice versa. That is not the case with "civil unions" which are of untested legality outside of the jurisdiction recognizing it. All these "defense of marriage" laws are attempts to circumvent the Constitution. Sooner or later a court is going to rule that federal or state laws to the contrary notwithstanding, a gay marriage in Massachusetts is valid throughout the US and must be recognized as such.

Hopefully we won't have a final paroxysm of hate in trying to reverse such a decision by amending the US Constitution.