My Home Page
To the Editor:
Support for same-sex marriage extends across the state, as half of Massachusetts residents strongly approve of the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health (Boston Globe poll, Nov. 23). For the same-sex couples profiled in the Swampscott Reporter last week, the decision lifts major financial burdens and secures the legal foundations of a family. After a 180 day “implementation period” in which the legislature has no choice but to enable the inclusion of same-sex couples into state marriage laws, Tony Hart and Joel Bean should be free of inheritance tax jitters and extra health insurance payments. Sophie Godley and Kristen Fehlhaber will finally be able to legally adopt their son, Leo, without the future hassle of carrying legal documents to prove their parental status. Although the SJC decision specifically grants same-sex couples the right to civil marriage, Swampscott’s local legislators have exposed their own ignorance and ulterior motives by advocating for “civil unions.”
As of the present time, there is only one civil union bill on the House docket. House Bill 1149, the civil union bill that Rep. Doug Peterson is supposedly sponsoring, is itself a tautology. Its purpose is to provide “eligible same sex couples the opportunity to obtain the benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities afforded to opposite sex couples by the marriage laws of the commonwealth.” Laws relating to workers’ compensation, insurance, divorce procedures, and even veteran benefits would apply. To put it mildly, this is civil marriage wearing a Marti Gras mask. It’s all part of a dangerous semantics game, politically engineered to “satisfy” same-sex couples while paying homage to homophobia. Any support of civil unions in this context is an attempt to undermine the tenets of justice and equality set forth by the SJC. The Boston Globe poll echoes this sentiment, indicating that 53% of Massachusetts residents want lawmakers to do nothing to block the implementation of the court ruling or to adjust the laws only so that they conform to the SJC opinion.
Yet, some voters are uncomfortable reconciling same-sex couples with the word “marriage.” Writing for the majority opinion in Goodridge, SJC Chief Justice Margaret Marshall acknowledged “Many people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman.” However, she continues by stating that “the marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason,” and that the state provided no credible arguments against same-sex marriage. Thus, if same-sex couples entered into a civil union under provisions from H.B. 1149, the state would actively block the word ‘marriage’ from ever describing that relationship. The marriage ban would remain. This is not equality, but a perversion of the court’s ruling. Nowhere in the 40+ page SJC judgment does the phrase “civil union” ever appear. When the Vermont Supreme Court issued its civil union ruling in December, 2000, the judgment was clear: “Whether this ultimately takes the form of inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel 'domestic partnership' system or some equivalent statutory alternative rests with the legislature." The Massachusetts decision provides for no other remedy other than civil marriage.
I am deeply disappointed and troubled by the comments of our local legislators regarding the SJC ruling (Local legislators report even split on SJC, Nov. 25).
Rep. Peterson: You have demonstrated a callous disregard for the equality of same-sex couples in your district by sponsoring H.B. 1149. The use of “backlash” is no excuse for denying same-sex couples the right to civil marriage, both in name and rightful benefits. With the opinion polls and wisdom of the SJC ruling, it has become clear that you value political calculations far more than the public interest. By endorsing civil unions, you send a destructive message that ‘tolerance’ and continued disapproval of same-sex couples is O.K. in this district. Getting re-elected may be an important consideration for you, but sacrificing others in a quest to satisfy a perceived majority is unbecoming of a united leader.
I challenge you to visit your constituents, Sophie and Kristen and their son, Leo. Ask them if marriage is “palatable” or “worth it.” Also, what message does this issue send to children of families headed by same-sex couples? Are their “civilly unionized” parents somehow worse than other “married” parents? Discrimination isn’t acceptable, no matter how you label it. You would exemplify real leadership by complying with the court ruling and dropping your sponsorship of the civil union bill.
I am unimpressed, Rep. Peterson. My dream is to run for public office and to serve the district of my residency with unwavering convictions that value equality and respect. Your actions are antithetical to that dream.
Sen. McGee: Where do you stand on this issue? Where is your leadership? As a constituent who is directly affected by the ruling, I am asking you to articulate a position.
In the end, marriage isn’t just about benefits. It often defines love between two people, regardless of gender, and love is part of our common humanity. The SJC ruling is a tribute to American equality and justice, and it must stand.
Matthew Pohl
Linden Avenue
The writer is a junior at Tufts University.
My Favorite things about Angelfire.
My Favorite Web Sites
Angelfire - Free Home Pages
Free Web Building Help
Angelfire HTML Library
HTML Gear - free polls, guestbooks, and more!
