Wow, Steve K, you came up ith THE most apposite answer for this one. How soon people forget – you start treating religious deviants decently and they get delusional and start thinking they are respectable. This is what has happened with Evangelicals, people of a social origin that in former times would never have been received at the front door in most of the “better” houses.

The process issue is important. At first I was inclined to think that the MA SJC’s decision was a bad move because it smacked of judicial activism ala Roe v Wade. After some thought, though, I’ve changed my mind. It is a question of equal protection and there can only be one answer – same sex couples ought to enjoy all the rights of other couples, including the right to state recognition of their marriage. Equal rights for gay people is of a piece with equal rights for African Americans. The constitution mandates it and the courts must step in when public policy is bigoted.

The difference with Roe was that the court had stepped into a situation whereby the right to abortion was being recognized in many states through legislative action. Roe had no readily discernable constitutional basis and precluded all further public involvement in the decision. The Roe decision was a clear case of overreaching judicial activism that ultimately empowered the Christian Taliban.

same-sex marriage is a one-way street – benefits flow from society to the couple but not the other way

I’d diagree, and assert that same-sex marriages would provide benefits back to society. I’d also ask “what exactly are the benefits that flow from society to married couples?” (Aside from the legal protections I listed in the post.) I’d argue that these legal protections are not ‘benefits’ afforded couples, but rather protections of natural rights and property rights.

this is a new concept, and as such it’s intellectually honest to use a new name for it rather than changing the meaning of an old name

So it is a question of semantics. I think if we call them ‘unions’ and they are made legal, it will just be a matter of time before the language will catch up and everyone will be calling them ‘marriages’ whether that is the legal term or not.

Also, I am not sure that this is such a “new concept” homosexual people desire to be married for many of the same reasons as heterosexual people. A new concept would be same-sex unions of heterosexuals joining together only for the benefits, whatever they are.

.oO(Oh, s**t, now I’ve gone and done it – mentioning the Big G on a political blog…)

However, I think that this is a new concept, and as such it’s intellectually honest to use a new name for it rather than changing the meaning of an old name.

From a pragmatic standpoint, I think that the people pushing for “marriage” and rejecting “civil unions” are fighting a battle which they will lose, and lose badly. By asking for more than much of the country is willing to give, and refusing the half-loaf, they’re likely to end up with no bread at all, and I don’t think this is the outcome which they seek.

Whether or not same-sex couples can adequately raise kids has been hotly debated for years, but obviously they cannot actually procreate, at least not without a third party involved (and even then, the child would carry only one of his/her parents’ DNA, and at least in the case of two gay men, render the surrogate mother unavailable for procreation for at least nine months). Therefore, unlike traditional marriage where the benefits supposedly flow both ways, same-sex marriage is a one-way street – benefits flow from society to the couple but not the other way.

Of course, this argument carries with it three underlying assumptions: (1) that all straight married couples will have, or even intend to have, kids, (2) that all families are of the traditional, married, “nuclear” variety, and (3) that all children, given these traditional families to grow up in, will eventually mature into fit and upstanding citizens as opposed to, say, violent felons. (Two particular products of traditional families, namely Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, come to mind.) Both assumptions are, to say the least, dicey at best.

True, there are many gays and lesbians who didn’t choose to be that way, but there are definitely some who did, otherwise you wouldn’t have bisexuality. No sexual preference really fits into a nice little box. I’m much more inclined to go with the Kinsey model of a sliding scale of sexual preference. That makes a lot more sense when you look at the diversity we have in our world.

However, I don’t really care about sexuality and I don’t care about choice. I care about equal rights. And since gay and lesbian relationships are not illegal, than those groups deserve the same protections and rights that everybody else has.

Also, we must remember this: “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Most of you know that’s the 14th Amendment and everybody reading this can be sure that, in the not-so-distant future, gays and lesbians will be recognized as a “suspect class” (in 14th amendment-speak) and afforded the same rights as everybody else.

It is inevitable, necessary and just.