perfidy

I've been mum on this topic because I live in Massachusetts and talk about it elsewhere so much. But here's the thing. As Jacob Levy observes, the FMA would make marriage one of the very few topics expressly taken off the table for states to legislate on, and aside from everything else that fact sits poorly with me. Most of the other "no-no's" for states are things like slavery. That is, the US Constitution bans states from passing legislation that would enslave people, and thereby restrict their human and civil rights.

The FMA is something different: in its most extreme wordings, it arbitrarily denies some people the rights granted to others. I'm not saying it's an easy question, and I understand that some people are dead-set against it. But many gay marriage opponents are conflating religious and moral issues with civil issues, and they need to be separated out here. Nobody will force the Church of What's Happening Now! to marry gay couples, just like nobody is forcing them to perform midnite ceremonies for a drunk-ass ho like Britney Spears.

As for my own opinions, I'm for gay marriage just like I'm for classic marriage-- and I take the matter pretty seriously, and expect that couples intending to marry do so as well. I'm even empowered to perform marriages, and have done so for couples who are appropriately serious about the affair. My state's legislature is meeting today to decide whether to put a state constitutional amendment on the ballot banning gay marriage. Two thoughts: at least it's happening in the right arena-- the state level; and a gay marriage ban will pass into the Massachusetts Constitution over my dead (or at least severely mauled and wounded) body.

[wik] The Onion comments. Excerpt: "What's the big deal? It's legal now. My sister's married to a gay guy and everyone knows it."