My Suggestions on Talking about Civil Unions

[tsipple]

We live in exciting times. We're alive to observe another expansion of civil rights to all people, regardless of sexual orientation. I'm astonished at how quickly this expansion seems to be moving forward. However, there are perils that lie ahead and a backlash brewing. So I'd like to offer some modest suggestions on how to talk about this issue with people, especially in the political sphere.

1. "Civil unions," not "marriage." There have been many polls here at DU, and I think it's fair to say most people share my opinion on this. It's an empirical fact that if you ask people "Do you favor civil unions?" you get higher agreement than with the term "marriage." (All the major Democratic candidates for President reflect this fact.)

It's the rights that count, because that's a matter of law. Experience has shown that, when you try to force people to use different language, you fail.

What would happen if you tried to force a change in language? The word "marriage" would simply get more adjectives in front. Everything from "gay marriage" to "sodomite marriage." Does anybody really want that?

So, first suggestion: stick to "civil unions," and correct opponents when they use the wrong language. "Marriage" has way too much baggage. The language will follow over time, just like "housewife" became "homemaker." There's a reason why religious opponents use the word "marriage": it polarizes the issue and makes it seem like it personally affects heterosexual couples when it doesn't.

2. Puzzlement. What I mean is that I think it would be useful for all of us to take the position that we simply don't understand why anyone would be angry or upset at other people's happiness. So here are a few sentences as talking points:

"I don't understand. Are there actually people who get angry when other people are happier?"

"As I understand it, with civil unions there are more people who are happy. Since it doesn't affect me, why should I be upset?"

"Let's see if I've got this right. A few people are upset because other people they don't even know or associate with are happier. What an awful way to go through life, getting angry at the joy of others."

3. Libertarianism. What I mean here is that this argument should be cast in terms of "big, intrusive government" versus individual freedoms. Here's a suggested sentence as a talking point:

"I don't think the government has any business meddling in personal relationships. Since it doesn't affect me, let people do what they want."

4. Poking Fun at the Opposition. You can almost always win if you point out the ridiculousness of the opposition by laughing at (not with) them. You have to be a little gentle, though. Here are some examples:

"Some people say that civil unions will undermine the sanctity of traditional marriage. Well, I say that if their marriages are so fragile that they hinge on what total strangers do, I think they ought to file for divorce now."

"So let's see if I've heard this right. Some people don't like the idea of civil unions. What do they want, lots of gay people sleeping around with multiple partners instead?"

"George W. Bush drove the economy into the ground. Massachusetts has the right idea with civil unions. It'll help their economy."

That last one is a two-fer. :-)

[veganwitch]

1. but unions and marriage are not the same

they do no have the same rights involved and by making them interchangable that clouds the issues.

civil marriage is just like the word "fuck" and all other swear words, if you use it often enough, it loses its shock value.

also by pushing for civil marriage and the rights and privileges that go with it, it shows that we will not be cowed by ignorant assholes.

[SteveG]

2. Marraige is a religious rite

Civil Union is a legal right
Marraige is sanctified by an organized religion
Civil Union is granting of certain legal rights by the State.

people who get married in the the Church usually have both performed at the same time (you sign the legal documents after the religious ceremony) people who get married before a judge don't get sanctified by any religion but they still get the legal rights. So maybe the terminology can be a useful way of explaining to others exactly what the difference is.

[adriennel]

7. some churches

now will marry a gay couple.

[Snow]

15. Society of Friends in the US first did so in 1982....

in Seattle. I was there. Cried, too...

[veganwitch]

9. than say civil marriage

use the word, use the phrase. whatever it takes. by any means neccessary to break the the assumed meaning of the word.

ignoring it aint gonna make it go away.

[HereSince1628]

14. Well, states issue marriage licenses, not churches.

So I am not sure you are completely correct in your distinction.

I agree that basic issue is not allowing government to discriminate against a couple seeking marriage on the basis of their sexual orientation.

[tsipple]

24. Right, States Do Issue Marriage Licenses

That's because there's not yet an equivalent legal framework for same-sex couples.

Marriage originated in religious institutions and predated government, and it has always been a religious recognition of opposite-sex unions.

What we (progressives) want is states to also issue civil union licenses. With the same rights and responsibilities.

Look, this is a very fine point but a terribly important one. You cannot redefine the word "marriage" and expect to win. The English language has a very precise definition for the word. Here's what my Webster's says:

marriage: (noun form of "marry")
marry: 1. to join as husband and wife; unite in wedlock. 2. to join (a man) to a woman as her husband, or (a woman) to a man as his wife.

For the record, there are terciary definitions, some of which might vaguely be construed as applying to same-sex couples, though it's a stretch. ("Married" to your work, for example.) But those are the first two, meaning the most commonly held.

Why are we even talking about a dictionary debate? Because we're suckers for right wing obfuscation? I am interested in securing rights, responsibilities, and legal status for a big segment of the population who can't yet get what I can. And I'm telling everybody that if you fight the word fight you will go down in flames, and America will be stuck with something like the Dread Scott decision sooner rather than later. (Such as a Constitutional amendment enshrining bigotry.) Don't go here. You will lose. The right wing knows this, and that's what they're going to do: talk all the time about "gay marriage."

[TrogL]

33. Dictionaries change

when they are in error or society moves on.

Boswell has documented same-sex marriages in the Middle Ages.

[tsipple]

34. We Still Don't Have Gender-Neutral Pronouns

We're talking a century or two. I don't want to wait that long.

The last pronoun shift was over two centuries ago, when you heard words like "thy" (as in, "thy heart is full of joy," meaning "your" I guess).

Meanwhile, gays and lesbians don't have basic civil rights in 49 states. (In 180 days it'll hopefully be 48 states. California is getting there, so call it 47 1/2.)

Oh, I suppose we could have a fight over Webster's Dictionary. (Which doesn't mean everybody will say what's in the dictionary anyway. As if.) But what's the point? We'll end up with "gay marriage" (the word with yet another qualifying adjective -- linguistically separate) or "civil unions" (also linguistically separate, but not also in the linguistic ghetto). And, with the latter, gays and lesbians might -- might! -- get the civil rights, too.

Lord knows heterosexuals have screwed up marriage. Hopefully gays and lesbians can do a better job.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Snow]

4. Excellent points - especially the language...

I fought the DOMA tooth and toenail in Nebraska (then moved to LA), and a major part of the problem is the confusion of civil with religious. Separate them, and it clears things up a lot.

My fear is this is an enormously divisive issue that could become a presidential comapaign issue next fall. With luck it will go away by then, but I'd bet it'll be kept alive or resurrected, and this language shift is an excellent way to defuse it a priori. It points up a distinction that is not there in most peoples' minds.

[chimpymustgo]

3. I like your suggestions. We know we're right, but we have to play to WIN.

Language is an important component of any fight. Civil unions is the way to go.

I also really like:

"I don't understand. Are there actually people who get angry when other people are happier?"

[wtmusic]

5. Good ideas

The Libertarianism approach, IME, is the most effective with RW types who generally argue for a small government anyway.

The argument against gay marriage isn't about denying anyone happiness, it's a perceived threat to morality; that pedophilia and any number of other sins would follow.

[lcooksey]

6. The problem with "civil unions"

I like your idea, but the problem with civil unions is that the benefits of such laws are restricted to the state where they are passed. Businesses, counties, and cities don't have any regulations that cover civil unions. Imagine the time and money required for every state, county, and business to rewrite every law and rule they have that mentions marriage and update it to include civil unions. That's what Lieberman proposes he'd do as President -- have every Federal law reviewed, and maybe updated. Dean plans a more reasonable approach, a blanket law that would automatically add civil unions to all Federal laws and rules that apply based on marriage. But that still wouldn't cover me moving to California after a Vermont civil union.

I think the phrase "civil marriage" is much better than civil unions. It draws the distinction to religious marriage -- i.e., nobody is going to force a Catholic priest to marry two men or two women in his church. Nobody knows what "civil unions" means. But I think we can educate people about civil marriage.

Dean and Clark have both addressed the marriage vs. civil unions issue in terms of states rights. States get to decide who can get married. If a state wants to allow civil unions and/or same-sex marriage, who is the President to tell them they can't?

As for Puzzlement, I'd add two more responses:

"What does marriage have to do with religion? We let atheists get marriage licenses at the county courthouse."

"If you don't like judicial activism, do you think the Supreme Court should have let states keep their laws against people of different races getting married back in 1967?"

Laura

[tsipple]

11. State Restrictions

I like your idea, but the problem with civil unions is that the benefits of such laws are restricted to the state where they are passed. Businesses, counties, and cities don't have any regulations that cover civil unions.

That's the problem with civil unions as they presently exist. Calling them "marriages" (language) has no bearing on that reality. (I can call them "gender neutral couple hitching" and it wouldn't change anything either.)

Rights first, then language (naturally) follows. Words first and we come across like some insane P.C. policemen and lose it all. Er, policepeople. (See what I mean?)

[maggrwaggr]

19. the trouble with your responses

is they're both defensive.

In this race, to be on the defensive is to lose.

We have to stay on the offensive.

[newyawker99]

31. Hi lcooksey!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[LeahMira]

8. IS a rose just a rose by any other name?

1. "Civil unions," not "marriage." There have been many polls here at DU, and I think it's fair to say
most people share my opinion on this. It's an empirical fact that if you ask people "Do you favor civil
unions?" you get higher agreement than with the term "marriage."

My concern is about the wording of the laws. If a "separate but equal" term is used to refer to a union of a gay couple, wouldn't that require writing a separate group of laws to pertain just to gay couples? Wouldn't it be easier to call their union a marriage and in that way extend all existing laws to include them? It seems to me that if they are a separate category, with separate words, then either rewriting laws or inserting a phrase into existing laws to include gay unions might also allow for the possibility of some loopholes slipping in.

[tsipple]

10. Separate Only in Language, Not in Fact and Law

I am not arguing any separation in rights and responsibilities. That's a false analogy here. ("Separate but equal" referred to much more than language. It referred to the reality of blacks attending physically different schools than whites.)

What I'm saying is that if people get hung up on the language we will lose. Just as the ERA people did a generation ago. (They lost that battle over language but won the war. Civil rights for women have become enshrined into law, both federally and in all the states. The gender-neutral pronouns? Forget about it.)

There is absolutely no way to achieve equality in language. Let me list some of the terms that already exist to describe just heterosexual marriage:

shotgun marriage
holy marriage
religious marriage
Christian marriage
Judeo-Christian marriage
loveless marriage
first marriage
second marriage
third marriage (etc.)
interracial marriage
marriage of convenience
arranged marriage
sexless marriage
childless marriage
procreative marriage
consummated marriage
previous marriage
abusive marriage
unequal marriage
faithful marriage
unfaithful marriage
open marriage

There is no equality of language within marriage already. Like I said, if we get hung up on fighting for equality of language we might as well give up now. Otherwise we're just going to end up with a bunch more adjectives:

gay marriage
homosexual marriage
same-sex marriage
sodomite marriage
perverted marriage
non-traditional marriage
queer marriage
lesbian marriage
transgender marriage
GLBT marriage
non-procreative marriage

This one's a right-wing trap. Don't fall for it. The last thing the "forces of darkness" want is to focus on the rights, responsibilities, individual liberties, and personal happiness issues. They want the fight to be about words, because that's their strongest "argument."

[southpaw72]

12. Camel's nose in the tent

A common ploy I've seen opponents of same-sex marriage use is that it is the "camel's nose sticking into the tent," i.e., that same-sex marriage is the first step on a slippery slope that will end up with the state having to recognize trigamous unions, bestiality, etc., etc., whatever.

While this argument is both legally and logically fallacious, it does seem to have tremendous rhetorical appeal.

Any ideas on a good way to refute it?

[Options Remain]

13. we shouldnt

a familiy is a family and no state or religion has any right to say otherwise.

when you break the decision down you are talking about one thing. "what is a family" the answer is whatever you beleive it to be.

The spin monsters are going to go after this one until they have convinced people that all of their firstborn children are going to be forced into homosexual relationships.

Its about who is a family and who isnt. I contend that their church and our government has no place in telling me or you that my family isn't.

TearForger

[rucky]

16. Two Consenting Adults

...there's nothing slippery about that. Agree that it's where the line should be drawn - two people. Gender is the issue here, that's all.

Not everybody is pushing an extremist agenda (like the RW). And not everybody refuses to see middle ground (like the RW). These are reasonable people with a modest request. Nothing more.

[tsipple]

18. Here's One Answer...

"That's a pretty silly concern in my opinion. But if you're concerned about that, I'd be happy to help you get a law or even Constitutional amendment passed that limits both marriage and civil union to couples -- two individuals. Let's work together to get that done now."

If they bite, you've won. If they don't bite, you've taken away their rhetoric.

[maggrwaggr]

17. listen, this should NOT be an issue in the 2004 race

the GOP is trying to make it an issue. And they're succeeding. Don't take the bait.

here are two headlines right here, today:

Gay marriage a hot-button issue for '04 race

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/judy.desk.gay.marriage/

(snip)A CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll taken last month shows that a little more than one third of Americans think gay marriages should be legally valid. (snip)

Gay Marriage Enters The Race

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/11/politics/main583048.shtml

(snip)Democrats have often fared poorly on those issues, especially in the South, the newspaper reports. A recent Pew poll of 1,515 Americans found that 59 percent oppose gay marriage.(snip)

[tsipple]

21. We Should Be All Over This One in Letters and Phone Calls

Dear Editor:

Your headline is misleading, and I'm writing to ask you to do a better job in your reporting.

"Marriage" is defined by churches and other religious institutions, not by government.

The only question is whether there ought to be civil unions. We believe there should be, and that all individuals should be able to assume the legal rights and responsibilities that come with long term, committed relationships.

Please do not continue to perpetuate a myth by using "Gay Marriage" in your headlines. You're only confusing the issue, not enlightening your (readers, viewers).

Sincerely,

Mr. and Mrs. Thomas and Jane Smith

[AP]

20. Another one: agnostic straight people should say "I'd get a civil union,

if it meant I didn't have to waste my time getting a Justice of the Peace marriage."

It makes the point that government shouldn't be in the business of the ceremony part of the marriage and should only focus on legal relationships.

[goodhue]

22. separate is not equal

A marriage license is provided by the state and should not be denied on the basis of sexual orientation of the applicants. "Civil unions" is a half-assed solution in the vein of separate but equal. It will not last. Two-tiers of state sanctioned partnership, one for heterosexual and one for homosexual couples will not stand the test of time, just as keeping minorities on the back of the bus only worked for 50-60 years. This is a long term battle that has just begun. Change is coming. Which side are you on? The so-called leading democrat candidates lack the courage and conviction to get out ahead of the issue as they should. Fourtunately, one candidate had this to say yesterday:

Kucinich Applauds Ruling on Same-Sex Marriage

"As a candidate for president who publicly supports federal legislation for gay marriage, I applaud the Massachusetts Supreme Court for upholding the civil rights of citizens in their state by ruling it is unconstitutional for the state to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples. The historic Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health decision can light the way for equality for all Americans.

"The effort by members of the Massachusetts state legislature to push a Denial of Marriage Act is a divisive measure. There must be federal protection for civil rights issues. Gay and lesbian couples should have equal protection under civil law. No state has a right to abridge basic rights to privacy. Separate is not equal.

"The right to marry is a civil right that should not be denied. I support federal legislation for civil marriage between same-sex couples. Civil Unions do not provide equal rights to LGBT Americans. According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage provides at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions are a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, and provision of insurance for families."

http://www.kucinich.us/

[tsipple]

25. But It Is Separate!

What you describe is great and all, but you're trying to pervert (in my humble opinion) the plain meaning of the English language to achieve some politically correct objective. And America -- an enormously tolerant country -- will think you're a nutcase.

There is a fundamental difference here: it's two men or two women! We've never had that before. We don't know what to call it, but we sure as hell know it's not "marriage." (I'm talking 80% of America here. And I'm in that 80%.) Any more than men and women are omnuses (or whatever the politically correct gender-neutral pronoun is supposed to be).

It is just nuts to try to fight the English language. People think you're a wacko, and rightly so, when you make that argument. And you get nowhere fast and probably even go backwards.

Plus it's un-American anyway not to celebrate our differences. We are a melting pot (chunky stew), not a homogenous clear broth. To say otherwise is to fly in the face of reality.

The Americans with Disabilities Act ensured that a whole class of citizens could participate more fully in society. We built (and continue to build) ramps, elevators, and other facilities to make sure that happens, and we have a whole set of laws to make it work. But we didn't run around trying to redefine the word "walk" or "wheelchair." (Well, maybe one or two loons did, but over 200 million of us didn't.) In the space of about a year or two that law was proposed, passed, signed, and enforcement started. Now, despite a tiny bit of residual grumbling, it's a reality.

I want that for civil unions! Let's not blow it on the stupid stuff, OK? Laws, rights, responsibilities, realities. Trying to force people to say different words is just plain nuts -- and possibly anti-free speech anyway.

Sorry to rant (a little), but I want to win this one!

[goodhue]

28. the law

Well I suppose some felt it was wacko to let the Lovings get married.

Please read the decision if you have not already done so . . .
http://www.masslaw.com/archives/ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm

Look this is about constitutional law, not what most people think. Most people once supported anti-miscegenation laws, but that did not make those laws anymore constitutional.

The decision yesterday was inevitable and will become the law of the land short of a US constitutional amendment. This has been clear for years to anyone who has sat through a con law and family law class.

The march of civil rights law is indeed about forcing people into different worlds. Some of us already live there.

As Marshall put it in yesterday's opinion:
The history of constitutional law "is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded." United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 557 (1996) (construing equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit categorical exclusion of women from public military institute). This statement is as true in the area of civil marriage as in any other area of civil rights. See, e.g., Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711 (1948). As a public institution and a right of fundamental importance, civil marriage is an evolving paradigm. The common law was exceptionally harsh toward women who became wives: a woman's legal identity all but evaporated into that of her husband. See generally C.P. Kindregan, Jr., & M.L. Inker, Family Law and Practice §§ 1.9 and 1.10 (3d ed. 2002). Thus, one early Nineteenth Century jurist could observe matter of factly that, prior to the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, "the condition of a slave resembled the connection of a wife with her husband, and of infant children with their father. He is obliged to maintain them, and they cannot be separated from him." Winchendon v. Hatfield, 4 Mass. 123, 129 (1808). But since at least the middle of the Nineteenth Century, both the courts and the Legislature have acted to ameliorate the harshness of the common-law regime. In Bradford v. Worcester, 184 Mass. 557, 562 (1904), we refused to apply the common-law rule that the wife's legal residence was that of her husband to defeat her claim to a municipal "settlement of paupers." In Lewis v. Lewis, 370 Mass. 619, 629 (1976), we abrogated the common-law doctrine immunizing a husband against certain suits because the common-law rule was predicated on "antediluvian assumptions concerning the role and status of women in marriage and in society." Id. at 621. Alarms about the imminent erosion of the "natural" order of marriage were sounded over the demise of antimiscegenation laws, the expansion of the rights of married women, and the introduction of "no-fault" divorce.<32> Marriage has survived all of these transformations, and we have no doubt that marriage will continue to be a vibrant and revered institution.

[goodhue]

30. 1948

“I very much feel this case has a lot of resonance with what the California Supreme Court did in 1948 when it became the first to strike down a ban on interracial marriage,” said Mary L. Bonauto, the lawyer who represented the seven same-sex couples who won in Massachusetts yesterday. “That was at a time when nine out of 10 Americans still opposed interracial marriage and no court had ever ruled in favor of it.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/995345.asp?0si=-&cp1=1

[lcooksey]

32. Definitions

There is a fundamental difference here: it's two men or two women! We've never had that before. We don't know what to call it, but we sure as hell know it's not "marriage."

So in the early 1900s, when dictionaries defined "pilot" as "the man who steers a ship or boat", it was not correct to use that word to describe "the man who steers an airplane." Because we'd never had airplanes before then, so we should have come up with a new word.

Trying to force people to say different words is just plain nuts

We're not trying to force people to say different words. We're trying to get them to use the same word -- marriage -- to describe the same relationship. Marriage is the word used in Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands. By insisting on "civil unions" you are the one trying to get others to use different words.

[tsipple]

35. Your Pilot Analogy is Flawed

Automobiles were called "horseless carriages" at first. As it happens, their operators ("drivers") never got renamed.

Aircraft never got renamed similarly. (Airplanes are a subset of aircraft. So are airships, i.e. Zeppelins and blimps.) Watercraft (of which boats and ships are subsets) begat aircraft. So, naturally, pilots of watercraft are also pilots of aircraft.

But who the heck cares? For whatever reason the name "pilots" stuck. (There are variants, though. "Airmen," "aircrew," "flight crew," "flight officer," etc.)

It's not working with "marriage." Far from it. Something like eighty percent of Americans reject that word as a description for the union of two men (or two women) in a committed, loving relationship, with the rights and obligations that flow from it. And 99+ percent of Americans feel compelled to put the word "gay" in front of it anyway. (Have you seen a single news headline that used the word "marriage" without the adjective? Neither have I. Even Carol Moseley-Braun, who favors the word, puts the adjective in front, and all the news stories about her did the same.)

I don't know (completely) why that is. I just know it is. So do the Christian conservatives, which is why they use the word as much as they possibly can on TV, radio, etc.

Same deal with "partial-birth abortion" and "intact dialation and extraction." The former is a poll-tested phrase designed to evoke as much panic among the population at large as possible. The latter is the proper name of a medical procedure.

So you can tilt at windmills all day long, get the vast majority of Americans offended -- how many people do you know who can get away with correcting someone's grammar or diction? -- and go backwards. The fundies get their Constitutional amendment, and we go another century without basic civil rights for gays and lesbians.

Or we move forward -- with great difficulty, and without guarantees, but hopefully we do move forward.

The decision is that stark and that simple. Show me any poll that says I'm wrong.

[AP]

26. Render onto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and onto God what is God's

The government shouldn't even be in the business of religion in any form. If you get married, you get certain legal rights. Well, government is in the business of conferring legal rights, and we should separate out the religious part in deciding what those legal rights are.

I think this issue is framed all wrong. Same-sex couples shouldn't be fighting for the government to get deeper in the business of religion. Opposit-sex couples should be fighting to get civil unions, like same-sex couples.

[goodhue]

27. Civil marriage

is not about religion at least from the perspective of the state. When one applies for a "marriage" license in MA, religion thankfully has nothing to do with whether or not the state grants the "marriage" license. Similarly, when going to the court house in possession of the license, the judge will marry the license holders without "religion" entering into it. The MA decision is squarely about a "marriage license" issued by the state. Whether a couple wants to go to a church for a ceremony is of no concern to the state.

I think this thread tends to generally miss that the decision yesterday was about a state license for "marriage." Nothing to do with religion. The canard that the decision shot down was that there was a rational basis for denying the license for same sex couples because of the states interest in procreation. The court rightly found that such a reason did not provide a rationale basis for the differentiation between same-sex and opposite sex couples.

http://www.masslaw.com/archives/ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm

Here is an excerpt from the decision:

We begin by considering the nature of civil marriage itself. Simply put, the government creates civil marriage. In Massachusetts, civil marriage is, and since pre-Colonial days has been, precisely what its name implies: a wholly secular institution. See Commonwealth v. Munson, 127 Mass. 459, 460-466 (1879) (noting that "in Massachusetts, from very early times, the requisites of a valid marriage have been regulated by statutes of the Colony, Province, and Commonwealth," and surveying marriage statutes from 1639 through 1834). No religious ceremony has ever been required to validate a Massachusetts marriage. Id.

In a real sense, there are three partners to every civil marriage: two willing spouses and an approving State. See DeMatteo v. DeMatteo, 436 Mass. 18, 31 (2002) ("Marriage is not a mere contract between two parties but a legal status from which certain rights and obligations arise"); Smith v. Smith, 171 Mass. 404, 409 (1898) (on marriage, the parties "assume[] new relations to each other and to the State"). See also French v. McAnarney, 290 Mass. 544, 546 (1935). While only the parties can mutually assent to marriage, the terms of the marriage -- who may marry and what obligations, benefits, and liabilities attach to civil marriage -- are set by the Commonwealth. Conversely, while only the parties can agree to end the marriage (absent the death of one of them or a marriage void ab initio), the Commonwealth defines the exit terms. See G. L. c. 208.

Civil marriage is created and regulated through exercise of the police power. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983) (regulation of marriage is properly within the scope of the police power). "Police power" (now more commonly termed the State's regulatory authority) is an old-fashioned term for the Commonwealth's lawmaking authority, as bounded by the liberty and equality guarantees of the Massachusetts Constitution and its express delegation of power from the people to their government. In broad terms, it is the Legislature's power to enact rules to regulate conduct, to the extent that such laws are "necessary to secure the health, safety, good order, comfort, or general welfare of the community" (citations omitted). Opinion of the Justices, 341 Mass. 760, 785 (1960).<12> See Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53, 85 (1851).

[qanda]

23. Democrats are going to LOSE on this issue

Especially in the Black community, where there are many very religious people who draw the line at gay marriage. I know, because I am surrounded by such people. Keep calling for gays to be married and the Democrats will definitely fracture their base. I have already been contacted by some of my friends, who are ministers and they are prepared to vote Republican on this issue alone.

[David__77]

29. The Demcrats might not be hurt...

I think the leaders of the party will call for civil unions, while maintaining "opposition" to same-sex marriage. I'm gay and I support same-sex marriage recognition, but I understand there's a lot of education to conduct. The gay community has to be a close ally of the Black community and its struggles. It has failed to do this in too many cases. I think that if the courts and more progressive states recognize same-sex marriage, it won't necessarily hurt the Democrats, especially if the courts are the ones doing it.

More importantly though, doing the right thing is always the right thing. The Democrats have stood for civil rights and have paid the price. But they've made the nation better and have earned the support of millions. This is no different.

[snippy]

36. There is only one way democrats can benefit politically on this.

That is to stress at every opportunity that they agree with Dick Cheney's position on civil unions.

This is a wedge issue for the majority of voters, which is why the republicans love it. The RNC sees an easy Bush win, much larger majorities in both houses of Congress, and huge gains in state legislatures if gay marriage is an issue in the election.

By adopting Cheney's position, democrats can prevent this from being a wedge issue for most voters and make it a wedge issue only for the republican base. Bush will be in trouble if the republican base does not turn out. So will hundreds of republican candidates down the ballot.

A non-political benefit to this strategy is that it will begin to change the hostile attitudes of millions of Americans, voters and non-voters, about this issue.