Very Gay News Indeed
I find
this
news very heartening. For the moment I'm suppressing my
inclination to worry that the Massachusetts legislature will screw this
up somehow. And I think
describing
marriage as "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the
exclusion of all others" is a very workable definition.
UPDATE: I'm going to have to read through
the
full decision (PDF) later, but I glanced at the opening paragraph
and...wow, just wow.
Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive
commitment of two
individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings
stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their
children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and
social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and
social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with
the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the
protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to
two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it
may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and
equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class
citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to
the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify
any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to
same-sex couples.
Wow.
UPDATE, TAKE TWO: Still haven't read the
full decision (HTML version),
but I thought
this piece
on Slate did a nice job explaining why the Massachusetts ruling differs
from earlier decisions in other states. Only thing it doesn't
cover is how the
Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA) could still screw things up on the federal
level, even if same-sex couples end up able to marry in Massachusetts
in six months' time.
