Sunday, May 23, 2004

Hillary and Julie Goodridge - The first legal same-sex marriage

Workers World May 27, 2004: Same-sex marriage victory

It is amazing that it took until the year 2004 to legalize gay marriage. It seems so fundamental to America’s core value of equal protection under the law. Two people sharing a life together, even raising kids together, should be allowed access to the same rights and protections as heto marriages. If one removes religion from the debate, gay marriage simply becomes a civil contract that affords the same basic rights to every married couple. It seems only fair.

Congratulations Mrs & Mrs Goodridge

Other links:
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
Unitarian Universalist Association
Hillary GOODRIDGE & others [FN1] vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & another. [FN2] SJC-08860

1 comment:

passthebread said...

I agree kinda maybe with a little bit of what you say - maybe. Here is a non-religious way to look at the gay marriage issue. Marriage is a contract. But like a quickie-bankruptcy, which is a bad thing, so too a quickie divorce is a bad thing. Basically, in America if two people decide amicably to end a marriage it is ended. Let the actual parties harmed (the kids) be damned. Marraige is an institution to protect kids and reform needs to happen to strengthen marriage by reforming divorce law. The courts need to be empowered to force people to stay married if it is deemed necessary for the kids. Courts (i.e. marriage as an institution) do not currently have the power to deny divorce as a right. The proper definition of marriage, if you take religion out of the equation, is not one of gender as much of binding lifelong monogomy with little or no right to divorce.
The problem with the current discussion is that the same-sex folk speak of marriage as some sentimental ritual. Dressing up and staring in each others eyes in public is not what marriage as an institution is about. Marriage is a legally binding contract which makes divorce only possible when the innocent party of a gross violation of the contract gives the violator the divorce. Even in these situations the violator is supposed to be banned from further marriage much like a guy who files for bankruptcy is supposed to have a season where they are banned from getting big loans.