Massachusetts Ended the Marriage Exclusion
Massachusetts no longer shuts committed same-sex couples out of marriage. The sky has not fallen, and actually communities are better off, because promoting responsibility is good for everyone. As observed by the Massachusetts newspaper The Republican, “even some of [the] most vocal opponents have come to realize that the controversy over [allowing access to] marriage was a lot of fuss about nothing.” In fact, The Boston Globe reported that in the first election after the discrimination ended, “every challenger to a supporter of gay marriage was defeated.”
On the anniversary of the freedom to marry for same-sex couples in Massachusetts, the Globe declared in a May 17, 2005, editorial that “[i]t strains the imagination to see how a year of [allowing access to] marriage has caused the state any discernible harm.” Relating to the fuss raised over so-called traditional marriage, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas that the argument for “preserving the traditional institution of marriage . . . is just a kinder way” of expressing disapproval of same-sex couples.
As a nation, will we support or undermine the lifelong promise to take care of and be responsible for one another? When we support commitments, everybody wins.
OV Social
Heterosexuals and homosexuals technically have the exact same rights as far as marriage, and in everything else. They both have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. It is not the fact that homosexuals are getting married, which would be discriminatory, it is the fact that two people of the same gender are not allowed to marry. I realize this is slightly confusing, so I'll give examples. In a Chuck and Larry-type situation, where two straight men want to get married for some financial purpose, or some other reason, it would not be allowed, the same as it is not allowed for homosexuals. On the flip side, a homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman, just as a heterosexual man can marry a heterosexual woman. The law does not stop homosexuals from marrying, it stops anyone from marrying someone of the same gender, the same as it stops people from marrying multiple people. It does not bar polygamists from marriage, which would be discriminatory, it bars people from marrying multiple spouses. The problem arises because homosexuals don't want to marry someone of the opposite gender, they want someone of the same gender. There is no discrimination to end, there is an expansion of the definition of marriage that is desired. To give an extreme example that follows the same lines, say some cult wanted to have human sacrifice. Barring that said cult from operating would be discriminatory, while banning human sacrifice for anyone is not. That's not to say that gay marriage is in any way equivalent to human sacrifice, but an extreme example is sometimes required to demonstrate a logical concept.