MORE ON THE WORD "MARRIAGE": The New York Times

...Gay rights advocates, and the majority in the 4-to-3 [Goodridge] decision, said words are symbols and symbols matter.

"The dissimilitude between the terms 'civil marriage' and 'civil union' is not innocuous," Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall wrote. "It is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status."

Lawyers for gay couples add that marriages are more likely to be recognized in other states than civil unions, though this argument is complicated by about 40 federal and state "defense of marriage" laws that say essentially the opposite. ...

Justice Sosman proposed renaming all unions.

"Rather than imbuing the word 'marriage' with constitutional significance, there is much to be said for the argument that the secular legal institution, which has gradually come to mean something very different from its original religious counterpart, be given a name that distinguishes it from the religious sacrament of 'marriage,' " she wrote. "The legislature could, rationally and permissibly, decide that the time has come to jettison the term."

The majority seemed to agree. A new name for all unions, Chief Justice Marshall wrote, "might well be rational and permissible."

Douglas W. Kmiec and Mark S. Scarberry, law professors at Pepperdine University, suggested in a recent column that Massachusetts could "temporarily get out of the new marriage business entirely." This would treat gay and straight couples equally, though heterosexuals could still be married in other states, and would not require the state to withdraw marriage licenses from gay couples in 2006 if a constitutional amendment took effect.

"Massachusetts needs some time for cooler heads to prevail," Mr. Kmiec said in an interview. "Legislators could say, 'We're going to close the civil marriage window in Massachusetts.' "

more
posted by Eve at 4:51 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home