When the Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed this week that gay men and lesbians have a constitutional right to marriage, they guaranteed two things: one, that this would become a Presidential election campaign issue and, two, there'll be a mad dash to introduce state constitutional amendments as pre-emptive strikes even in those states that have existing laws banning gay/lesbian marriage.Personally, I view it as a matter of semantics and fail to understand the uproar. Yes, Webster defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman but I recall when 'impact' was a noun. I've long since given up the battle against the 'verbing' of America - I even Google things.
Idaho wasted no time ...
Proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Idaho to provide that only marriage between one man and one woman at one time shall be recognized as valid in this state and that no other relationship shall be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent by the state of Idaho or its political subdivisions, regardless of whether such relationship is recognized by the laws of any jurisdiction outside of this state.
I don't get why the government need be involved at all. It seems to me marriage is the business of the involved individuals and the religious organization under which they are wed. Then again, I'm still trying to understand why we need state licenses to fish, hunt, drive and marry but not to bear and raise children.
The Governor of Massachusetts (decrier of "activist judges" and proponent of defense of marriage laws), Mitt Romney, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he writes "Marriage is not 'an evolving paradigm' ...The institution of marriage was not created by government, and it should not be redefined by government." Agree or disagree with his evolving paradigm thesis but isn't he proposing exactly what he denounces ... the government defining marriage?
Postscript: Speaking of clarity in writing (okay maybe we weren't), I just re-read the first sentence of this post (not mine but Michael Powell's of the WaPo) and I don't think it likely gay men and lesbians would care to marry.