Eric the Red

When the Massachusettes state Supreme Court ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a debate ignited amongst all sorts of politicians over the implications. The governor of Massachusettes called for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision. President Bush stated that:

“Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman,” he said. “Today’s decision … violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.”

So whats this “marriage” thing? Marriage is both a religious and social contract. It establishes and reinforces both emotional and economic ties. Some particulars include property ownership, inheritance, sharing health benefits, hospital visitation, power of attorney and more.

Many sociologists draw distinction between religious and civil marriage. A religiously sanctioned marriage is completely seperate from a civil one, even though the state sanctions religiously administered marriages.

Civil marriage supports a state interest in fostering and supporting stable family units. Aaron Goldstein references Dr. Ellen C. Perrin, a professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine, who conducted research indicating that children of same sex parents have fewer issues with discipline and self esteem, as well as fewer psycological problems at home and at school.

From a legal point of view, a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage flies in the face of our constitutional principles of equality before the law for several reasons. First, such a ban presumes that gay couples universally follow stereotypes such as sexual obsession and drug abuse. Second, a ban on gay marriage would inject religious law into an environment where the seperation of church and state is sacrosanct. Unless we succumb to stereotypes, there is no rational legal basis for objecting to gay marriage unless religious rules are considered.

Many laws have come up in Maryland and California, among other states, guaranteeding various civil rights to gay couples. In Maryland, Governor Bob Ehrlich vetoed a bill that would establish visitation rights to unmarried couples where one partner was hospitalized. In California, legislators have postponed voting on a gay marriage bill until 2007. Texas recently approved a ban on gay marriage through a referendum.

Recognizing same-sex marriage, wether it is called marriage or civil union, can do no harm beyond pressure gays to pursue constructive, healthy relationships. Legitimacy is a healthy thing, repression and ignorance are not. For the moment, it would seem that as far as gay rights are concerned, we are on our we down a slippery slope as a nation. Which side are you on?