(no subject)

[aslant]

reading the text [registration required] of the massachusetts supreme judicial court ruling that "the prohibition against civil marriages for same-sex couples violates the massachusetts constitution" makes me feel triumphant and glad to live in this state. the ruling is so sane and anti-hysteria. (and this is civil marriage, mind you, not just civil unions like those currently recognized in vermont.) the republicans are driving themselves into a righteous frenzy about it today and it is nice to see that our state supreme court has anticipated most of the counter-arguments, and took time to point out the fundamental inaccuracies and inconsistencies of said counter-arguments. one gets tired of hearing the same circular logic from various individuals (our governor; the president) that marriage is sacred because it is sacred. it is not a matter of god or bible or doctrine. civil marriage is precisely that: civil.

The plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do not want marriage abolished. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity provisions or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law. Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race.

If anything, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to individuals and communities. That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit.