Less gay marriage in Bay State

Massachusetts’ highest-court ruling limits gay marriage and equality.

Less than a week ago the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples hailing from states that prohibit same-sex marriage cannot wed in the Bay State.

Not only is the court’s reasoning wrongheaded, but it also prevents heterosexuals from seeing the utter deceit behind anti-gay marriage rhetoric.

The ruling comes after the state began recognizing gay marriage in 2004. The Court’s reasoning is based on a 1913 state law that prohibits marriages for nonresidents if their home state would not recognize the marriage. The governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, welcomed the ruling stating he does not want Massachusetts to become the “Las Vegas of same-sex marriage.” The fact that the state used a nearly centuries-old law to prevent only gays from getting married is clearly state-sponsored discrimination and, once again, relegates gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens to second-class status. The fact is, more than 6,600 gay couples have wed in Massachusetts without any of the apocalyptic effects that many opponents prophesized.

This ruling means that same-sex couples from the 19 states that already have made constitutional amendments banning gay marriage cannot go to Massachusetts to get married, nor can they challenge the constitutionality of limiting gay marriage. It means they cannot return to their home states and prove they have not taken anything away from the “sanctity” of marriage and that gay marriage is actually good for family values. Furthermore, it reinforces the notion that gay marriage, and gay men and lesbians in general somehow are less and that their love means less.

Right now six more states, including Minnesota, are considering constitutional amendments that would ban gay marriage. It is a bit odd that as the nation as a whole becomes progressively more accepting of gay marriage that “activist” judges and politicians are pushing the country in the opposite direction.

How long will this erosion of civil rights go on?