I Now Pronounce You Man and Man

It will be marriage in Massachusetts, not civil unions. The highest state court ruled today that the legislature cannot offer gay couples civil unions with full rights in lieu of marriage.

I'm glad this is happening, and I'm glad this is happening today. Some gay people are content with the word civil unions if it comes with the same rights as marriage. I'm not, for the same reasoning as the courts: it's a return of "separate but equal" that creates a second class of citizens.

Some people would also prefer that we have this debate a few years from now, when society might be more accepting and there would therefore be less of a legislative backlash. I may have agreed with this 10 years ago, when the threat of constitutional revisions were much more of a possibility, but that's not a big threat now. Even some people against marriage are against barring it by amending the constitution. The only other realistic option today to prevent gay marriage is legislative, and those laws can be struck down by the courts.

My other argument on why this decision comes at the right time in history is more subtle. The acceptance of gay people in our culture started at the direct experience level, e.g. a straight person finds out his best friend is gay, and has a conflict with his previous, socialized belief that being gay is weird and/or immoral. This isn't an easy conflict to resolve. But once enough people did, the idea that we should accept gay people began bubbling up into the socialization process, through TV shows and other media. We're at the point now that most kids are being socialized to accept gay people, almost a complete reversal from 20 years ago. In one poll on gay marriage, 61% of 18- to 29-year-olds favor it; 18% of people 65 and older do.

Here's my point: having the courts establish the legality of gay marriage strengthens this socialization process, even if it's just a bit. More importantly, it weakens the socialization process with the opposite message, that gays marriage is wrong. It is harder to make an argument that directly contradicts the law, whether it's a good argument (blacks has a right to equality) or a bad one.

In the past, when the courts have made rulings that society wasn't "ready" for (I'm thinking about civil rights here), society eventually adjusted to the ruling, much faster I would argue then if one just waited for people to change on their own. In other words, you may have to cram enlightenment down people's throats, but once you do, they eventually swallow (who wants to extend this metaphor to puking?). And because I think there isn't enough support for constitutional amendments today at either the national or state level, I feel this ruling comes at the right time.