|
Today in Obituaries (2004) - Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, President of the United Arab Emirates known for his tolerant views on religion and the West; and Theo van Gogh, Dutch filmmaker murdered for his criticism of Islam. |
|
|
Today in Obituaries (2004) - Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, President of the United Arab Emirates known for his tolerant views on religion and the West; and Theo van Gogh, Dutch filmmaker murdered for his criticism of Islam. |
Massachusetts, in nine days, will become the first state in the nation to afford full marital equality to lesbian and gay couples. For people like Evan Wolfson and Andrew Sullivan, this day has been one for which they have been fighting tirelessly for the past decade. They have met with many challenges and challengers in the intervening years, from anti-gay state initiatives to 1996's federal Defense of Marriage Act to Rep. Musgrave's constitutional amendment.
Andrew, Evan, and others, however, kept fighting for equality. This day, in other words, has not come "overnight," as some on the Right would have the nation believe. This has been a long, hard-fought battle against bigotry that only now is seeing major successes. There are, however, still unresolved issues and continued disputes.
Although some Massachusetts lawmakers wanted the court to vacate their decision in Goodridge, for example, the court held fast, unanimously telling the legislators no on Friday.
And then there's the issue of out-of-state couples, who are prohibited by a 1913 law from marrying if against the policy of their home state. Gov. Mitt Romney is using the law to discourage any influx of gays and lesbians seeking marriage certificates, but many local officials, state Senate Democrats, and The Boston Globe have announced their opposition to the law or Romney's use of it. As the paper's editorial put forth:
At its essence, the 1913 law is discriminatory. It was written to prevent mixed-race couples, and even divorced individuals, from obtaining marriage licenses in Massachusetts. It is a remnant from a different era when such discrimination was widely practiced. Now that the Supreme Judicial Court has declared discrimination against gay couples who want to marry unconstitutional, it is hard to see the point of enforcing the discriminatory laws of other states. Massachusetts should be proud of leading the nation in recognizing same-sex marriages, not clinging to moribund statutes to place obstacles in their way.
These battles do not end when the first marriage certificate is signed. Monday, May 17th will be a proud day in the movement for equality for LGBT Americans. It is not, however, an ending; it is a new beginning.
It's a new beginning for the couples who will be wed. It's a new beginning for non-gay people, who will see these couples and see their wedding announcements in the paper. It's a new beginning for legislators and others pushing to stop marriage equality, because now their vitriol will not be directed at some unknown concept but rather at the couple down the street.
Finally, it's a new beginning for all who support full equality, a chance for us to rededicate ourselves to ensuring that we keep moving forward and pushing in every way we can to end discrimination.
May 8, 2004 05:19 PM | TrackBackIs this strictly a states rights issue? Let's say a same sex marriage takes place in Massachusetts. The couple lives happily for several years, but just as happens with heterosexual marriages, there is a break up. One spouse seeks a divorce in Massachusetts and claims alimony, which under Masachusetts law should be awarded, based upon the evidence applied to the law. Let's say this spouse gets a favorable judgment in Massachusetts. Meantime, the other spouse has left Massachusetts. To what extent can that judgment be enforced against the absconding spouse outside Massachusetts? What if the couple had adopted a child before the split up? Could support obligations be enforced against the absconding spouse outside Massachusetts?
Posted by: Shag from Brookline at May 9, 2004 07:03 AMThe many scenarios at play here, such as the one you discussed (or something like it), is discussed by Prof. Andrew Koppelman in Jeffrey Rosen's "Yawn" piece for TNR.
Posted by: Chris Geidner at May 9, 2004 10:31 AMAlong with Andrew Sullivan and Evan Wolfson, much credit should be given to Mary Bonauto, the lead attorney in Goodridge, as well as in Baker, the Vermont case.
Posted by: RSLS at May 11, 2004 01:57 PM