“Having two parents who can feel and express love for each other, and give it in abundance to their children, that’s what matters. It doesn’t matter what the identities of those parents are.”
– Heidi Nortonsmith, one of the original gay couples to marry in Massachusetts in 2004.

Here’s more about how things have gone for the past 5 years…

At the time of those first weddings, the debate was red-hot — protests were frequent, expectations ran high that legislators would allow a referendum on whether to overturn the court ruling ordering same-sex marriage. Now, although Roman Catholic leaders and some conservative activists remain vocally opposed, there is overwhelming political support for same-sex marriage and no prospect for a referendum.

According to the latest state figures, through September 2008, there had been 12,167 same-sex marriages in Massachusetts — 64 percent of them between women — out of 170,209 marriages in all. Some consequences have been tangible — a boom for gay-friendly wedding businesses, the exit of a Roman Catholic charity from the adoption business — and some almost defy description.

“Having your committed relationships recognized — to say it’s deeply meaningful is to trivialize it,” said Mary Bonauto, lead lawyer in the landmark lawsuit. “I know people who’d been together 20 years who say, ‘Getting married — it knocked my socks off.'”

Still there are issues that these folks have to deal with, not the least of which is that their unions aren’t recognized federally. So that creates a whole host of problems, not the least of which is taxation. And with a president in the White House who claims he doesn’t think gays should be allowed to get married, it might be a long time before these problems are solved.

  • I think that gay couples should have all the benefits that straight couples do with finance, hospital visits, etc. My only objection is that I do not think that their union should be called “marriage.” Call it anything else, but I think that term should be reserved for natural heterosexual couples.

  • Mike:


  • wj

    Hey, Michael, with computer software you could just do a global change on everywhere in the laws of all 50 states (plus all the territories, and probably some cities and counties, not to mention all the Federal laws and regulations). And then have all of them add a law saying that what every other country in the world calls marriage will be deemed to be equivalent to what is now called “xxx” in the United States. Shouldn’t take more than a couple of years — except for those places where “marriage” or “married” made it into a state constitution, which might take longer.

    Piece of cake. Compared to the overwhelming trauma of just using the word marriage and getting on with it. I mean, no other word has ever had its meaning evolve over time, has it? (OK, other than the economic meaning of “liberal” in the 1800s becoming what is now termed “fiscal conservative.”)