|
As someone who is very familiar with this issue, and who supports civil unions, I think they went to far.
It's a "adjustment time" thing. I think the "separate but equal" civil union is a good way for gay couples to have the legal rights they need while making the whole thing palatable to conservatives who have a huge to-may-to/to-mah-to issue. After some time under a civil union system, renaming the thing as "marriage" would be less controversial.
Catering to the masses? Well, yes, in some sense. Since substantive rights are the real key, nomenclature only has an "ego" factor really.
And, pushing too hard too fast never bears fruit. In this instance, what will likely happen is that the constitutional convention in Mass will decide to make marriage only for 1 man and 1 woman. A court won't be able to overturn that. As for the gays that get married between now and 2006, their marriages will simply become null and void, the same as if they were brother/sister or any other pairing not recognized under the law.
So, by being too active, the court has done Massachusetts gays no favor.
What's really odd is that the legal case decided by the same court indicated the civil union may be enough and focused on substantive rights. I'll have to read the new opinion to see where they changed their minds.
[ 02-04-2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]
__________________
 
|