Boston Marriage

Two recent bits of news from Massachusetts that I find interesting.

The first is that employees of the Boston Globe are being told that the company is phasing out domestic partner benefits, now that gay couples are allowed to marry in the state. I see absolutely no problem with this; I always sort of despised domestic partner benefits because they provided many of the rights of marriage without the corresponding responsibilities. It was "marriage lite," and it never seemed equitable to me. Equality is equality, and we should settle for nothing less.

The second story from the Bay State is that the Supreme Court there ruled that a constitutional amendment to ban any future same-sex marriages in the only state that currently allows them (Vermont and Connecticut have civil unions) can be placed on the ballot if it receives the required number of votes in the state legislature, which is almost a surety. The matter will then go before voters in November 2008. Some LGBT activists petitioned the court to prevent this, but as long as the supporters of the initiative follow the correct constitutional process, I see no reason why their efforts -- hateful as they might be -- should be thwarted. If Massachusetts allows voters to decide on such issues, then we must make our case to them.

But I have to say, it worries me sick. The massive success of constitutional bans in other states, where they passed with huge majorities (in one instance approaching 90%), leads me to believe the issue is so deeply "other" to so many people that it will indeed pass. So maybe it won't lose 2-1, as was the average loss for such measures during the 2004 election. Maybe it will only lose 50.1% to 49.9%. It will still be a loss. I hope the voters of Massachusetts will be wise and fair-minded enough to realize that to deny equality (or even aspects of equality -- the proposed amendment would deny even arrangements like civil unions or domestic partnerships) on the basis of something that is biologically determined is not the sort of thing one wants to enshrine in the state's constitution. But I'm not sure even they have it in them.