Making All Unions Civil

So now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that gay couples can marry rather than enter into mere “civil unions,” it has become clear that, among other things, we now have a major battle of semantics on our hands. I tend to agree with the majority of the Court that to separate what the legal commitment of gay couples is called (a “civil union”) from what it is called for the majority non-gay population (“marriage”) is inherently unequal, and relegates the former to second-class status. That second-class status question (“Is there a legal difference between civil unions and marriage or not?”) could take years of costly legal battles to sort out, until eventually cooler heads will likely prevail, as more people will notice that Western Civilization hasn’t come apart at the seams because of civil unions and the older, more homophobic generation gives way to a much more open-minded younger generation.

(One recent poll reported that 67% of respondents between 18 and 29 agreed with the claim that gay marriage would improve society for the better or at least would have no negative effect, and 53% of those between 30 and 49 thought the same thing. Respondents over 50 had increasingly negative views of gay marriage.)

All that said, it is interesting that the divided Massachusetts court seemed to agree that one solution would be to drop the term “marriage” altogether as far as the legal institution is concerned, leaving it in its original form as something conferred in a religious context by a church or synagogue.

One thing that should be made clear by proponents of gay marriage in the face of what is sure to be Republican scare tactics: that churches won’t be forced against their will to “marry” gay people, just as those that don't wish to marry divorced heterosexuals are not forced to do so today.