Pictured, Playing on Stereotypes
"The ad agency, retail store and jeans manufacturer need to be 'taken to task'," for this billboard at right, writes Andrew F., a WCT reader. "If the gist of the ad showed these red-necks trying to intimidate Black men … it would NEVER have been shown!" The billboard for Riggs Workwear by Wrangler jeans is in rural Crete, Ill., on Rt I-94. It's a ClearChannel billboard.
----------------------------------------
"If [U.S. House Majority Leader] Tom DeLay had half a brain (if pigs had wings), he would have cheered the news that Massachusetts may legalize gay marriages. The institution for which the House majority leader has such concern, traditional marriage, is both wobbly and wheezing—the butt of cynical jokes, a gold mine for divorce lawyers and, even for the non-initiated, the triumph of hope over experience. Gays, bless 'em, may wind up saving marriage." — Richard Cohen writing in the Washington Post Nov. 20.
"The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples." — The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Nov. 18.
"We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. ... We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion." — The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Nov. 18.
"Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law." — The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Nov. 18.
"The 'marriage is procreation' argument singles out the one unbridgeable difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and transforms that difference into the essence of legal marriage. Like 'Amendment 2' to the Constitution of Colorado, which effectively denied homosexual persons equality under the law and full access to the political process, the marriage restriction impermissibly 'identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board.' Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 633 (1996). In so doing, the State's action confers an official stamp of approval on the destructive stereotype that same-sex relationships are inherently unstable and inferior to opposite-sex relationships and are not worthy of respect." — The Court.
"In this case, we are confronted with an entire, sizeable class of parents raising children who have absolutely no access to civil marriage and its protections because they are forbidden from procuring a marriage license. It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits because the State disapproves of their parents' sexual orientation." — The Court.
"The plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do not want marriage abolished. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity provisions, or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law. Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race. If anything, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to individuals and communities. That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit." — The Court.
"The [D]epartment [of Public Health] has had more than ample opportunity to articulate a constitutionally adequate justification for limiting civil marriage to opposite-sex unions. It has failed to do so. The department has offered purported justifications for the civil marriage restriction that are starkly at odds with the comprehensive network of vigorous, gender-neutral laws promoting stable families and the best interests of children. It has failed to identify any relevant characteristic that would justify shutting the door to civil marriage to a person who wishes to marry someone of the same sex." — The Supreme Judicial Court.
"Massachusetts residents, by a solid margin, said they support the Supreme Judicial Court's landmark decision legalizing gay marriage, according to a Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll. The poll ... indicated that 50 percent agree with the justices' decision, and 38 percent oppose it. Eleven percent expressed no opinion. The poll also indicated that a majority oppose efforts by the Legislature, Governor Mitt Romney, and Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly to block same-sex marriages and allow civil unions instead." — Boston Globe Nov. 23. Catholics surveyed were evenly divided on the ruling, as were Protestants.
"Some constitutional specialists say the ruling leaves no room for Beacon Hill leaders to offer anything but civil marriage rights to same-sex couples. But some political leaders, including Romney and Reilly, said the court gave lawmakers room to create a civil-union system that stops short of allowing gay marriage." — The Globe.
"Put this in the context of employment or voting rights or access to education, and you would no longer get much of an argument in this nation. This is a nation that provides equal protection under the law. ... The Massachusetts court is right in that marriage confers legal and economic benefits that should not be denied to a class of citizens. ... Many governments have begun to answer that concern, at least in part, by creating civil unions that give legal recognition to same-sex partnerships. That is a step Illinois should take, in addition to approving a long-stalled amendment to the state Human Rights Act to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. ... Congress must resist the urge to trump the courts and the state legislatures by amending the Constitution to define marriage." — Chicago Tribune editorial Nov. 20.
"It's time to ask why government should be defining marriage at all, and whether government should grant legal recognition of civil unions to all couples and leave the definition and recognition of marriage to religious organizations. There is one goal here: equal protection under the law." — Tribune.
----------------------------------------
