Mass. approves same-sex marriages

In a victory for civil rights, Massachusetts’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled on Nov. 18 that… In a victory for civil rights, Massachusetts’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled on Nov. 18 that same-sex couples have the right to marry under the state’s constitution.

And the Court didn’t temper its opinion either – no pesky civil unions for the people of Massachusetts.

Instead, in its decision, it granted the “legal, financial and social benefits of marriage” to same-sex couples, meaning that, in 180 days, when the ruling becomes effective, same-sex couples will enjoy the same rights as married ones – tax benefits, inheritance rights and all.

What does this mean for states that don’t have such a law? According to the president of the Boston Bar Association, “a marriage recognized in one state should be entitled to recognition in other states,” and the decision would need to be overturned by the United States Supreme Court.

So Pennsylvania – motto: only slightly less conservative than a blue suit with a red tie – will have some tough choices ahead of it. Pennsylvania passed a law directly prohibiting gay marriage, yet, under the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution, states must honor the “public acts, records and judicial proceedings” of every other state, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

And Pitt has even tougher choices – will it extend benefits to its employees’ spouses, if they are married in Massachusetts? If Pitt’s argument that it won’t give benefits to domestic partners, but will extend them to legal, same-sex spouses, is true, here’s the test.

But if it’s a bluff, an excuse to discriminate against its gay employees, Pitt will probably face additional lawsuits and complaints.

Many arguments have been made against same-sex marriage, mostly that it would corrupt marriage as a legal institution.

But straight people have already devalued marriage – rapists, murderers and tax cheats can marry legally. Moreover, if marriage is not to be taken lightly, then why are drive-through, Vegas-style chapels legal, but gay marriage is not?

And the divorce rate is already astronomical. The Netherlands, which recently legalized gay marriage, has shown that their gay divorce rate is roughly equal to their straight one, as would be expected. Gay marriage is not a threat to the legal institution – a wholly different animal than the religious institution of marriage.

And the Massachusetts Court can only affect the legal institution – but, for now, that’s enough.