I wish I could share Sullivan's faith in majority rule. But I don't.

Is there any reliable data on where Mass citizens now stand on this issue now?

I remember that the majority didn't like mixed-race marriage either.

Don't hold your breath.

Question: I read recently that same-sex civil unions with (reportedly) equal rights across the board were granted in New Jersey, but there was still mass outcry and angst because they weren't defined as "marriage," but as civil unions.

I completed a doc recently that covered gay marriage in part and the gay and lesbian couples that I interviewed all stated that what they wanted was equal legal rights as married couples, the same as straight married couples, nothing more, and none seemed to care what they were called as long as they had the same legal rights as straight married couples. A conservative twat that I interviewed was insistent that this wasn't the case and that the goal was to "reform the institution of marriage" and blah blah blah and cited the typical religious right arguments ad nauseum, which I internally dismissed because well, the guy was a twat.

But I guess I'm just concerned simply because what with the New Jersey reaction over one word that doesn't change the legal rights, will this attitude simply confirm the religious right's idea that it's not just about being treated as equal human beings under the law? Or is the guy right and it's really about more than just the legal civil rights? I'm genuinely confused and am hoping Dan might answer/clarify on this one?

I'd like to have faith in my fellow citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but I don't. And the reason for that is the fact that there were people here who demanded that a basic civil right be put up for vote by the people. And those people had their demand met. So even if we don't lose gay marriage in 2008, we've still lost.

I'll only speak for myself, Ann:

(...will this attitude...)

The attitude to which you refer differs between individuals. Many married gays and lesbians object to the mainstream preference of the term "gay marriage" because that, in itself, suggests that our marriages are separate, different, not equal. They are simply marriages.

(...confirm the religious right's idea that it's not just about being treated as equal human beings under the law?)

I am not responsible for what members of the religious right think. Marriage equality is just that. Different laws for different marriages is not equality.

(Or is the guy right...)

No, he is not.

(...and it's really about more than just the legal civil rights?)

Ultimately the argument is about equal access to a civil institution. The New Jersey action was proof that legislators will fall over themselves to concoct a separate structure before granting even the appearance of equality.

I accept a reasonable facsimile of civil rights as an interim measure only.

Ann, those who favor civil unions are ultimately closer to "reforming the institution of marriage" by concocting an entirely different legal structure for exactly the same civil arrangement.

Those who favor marriage equality seek equal access to an existing civil institution.

Those who oppose marriage equality seek exclusive government recognition of heterosexual marriages as a religious institution.

Clear enough?

Thanks David, that does clarify it better - I just assumed that equal rights are equal rights and the wording wasn't the important part so long as the rights were truly equal, but I definitely get what you're saying and it makes a bit more sense now why the one word would be important.

Thanks again!

Ann --

Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, wrote an article in The Stranger's October 20, 2005 issue titled "Just Say No to Civil Union."

It's worth a read. You can still find it at http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=23780

Quote from the article:

• One of the main protections that come with marriage is the word marriage, and the security, clarity, and dignity it brings to families. To be denied the vocabulary of marriage and its meaningful, resonant, and readily understood statement of love and commitment—and instead, have to fumble for 10 documents, explain a new term that doesn’t even have a verb, and, possibly, retain a lawyer just to protect your family in a time of crisis—is not fair and not equal.

• Civil union is good, but limited, and does not provide the full range of protection for families. There is only one system in our country that protects families no matter where they live or travel; it’s called marriage. Civil unions do not provide the 1,138 federal incidents of marriage, from social security to immigration to tax equity, or assure families that their legal relationship will be respected outside their home state.

• Civil union is a product of the work to win marriage itself; we don’t get even civil union by asking for civil union. Support for civil union represents a placeholder in people’s thinking as they grapple with the need to end discrimination against gay people, same-sex couples, and our kids. Running away from a discussion of how the denial of marriage harms families undercuts the reachable middle’s ability to rise to fairness.

• The opponents of equality are against civil union as well as marriage, as shown by the anti-gay amendments being pushed state by state and in Congress by right-wing groups. These attack measures would deny the freedom to marry, but also civil union, domestic partnership, and any other bit of protection, large or small. Separate and unequal “compromises� satisfy no one, and legislators who capitulate on questions of fundamental fairness and basic rights buy no one off, gain no peace, spare the state no debate, avoid no primary challenges, but rather just fall short on all sides. If we are going to have to fight anyway, why not fight for what we fully deserve? In fact, authenticity and leadership actually help politicians guide the public to the right result. Consider: In Vermont, where legislators created civil union rather than ending marriage discrimination, a right-wing firestorm followed anyway, with hateful attack ads across the state, primary challenges, and electoral turbulence. By contrast, in Massachusetts, every single legislator who supported marriage equality won reelection, and some of the loudest opponents were defeated, because the public had a chance to see leadership, hear the case, and, most importantly, see with their own eyes that when same-sex couples married, they didn’t use up the marriage licenses and the sky didn’t fall.

To sum it up, either marriage and civil union are the same, in which case, why do we need two lines at the clerk’s office? Or they are not the same, in which case, what is the government withholding from these Washington State families, and why?

Why can't we just do away with the gov's usage of the word "marriage"? If it is a religious/spiritual institution, enshrined in culture, yada yada -- can't someone claim it's a separation of church and state issue? I'm for civil unions for everybody, because I don't think the U.S. government has the power to pronounce, or even recognize anyone as "married".

Certainly a reasonable position, Cat, but not very practical.

The government has already steeped its law books in this tradition, having created a civil institution to mirror what, for many, is a religious institution.

No matter that marriage originates with a contract wherein the ownership of a woman passes from her father to her husband. The tautological argument that marriage equals one man + one woman is surely true in this sense.

A complete overhaul of marriage law would be about as cumbersome as a complete overhaul of intellectual property law: both are surely laudable goals, but it just won't happen in one swell foop.