It's been a busy week, so I've ignored a lot of news. But belatedly, last Monday's Supreme Court decision not to review a challenge to Massachusetts' gay marriage ruling is of some significance.
I have come to believe the original, split decision by the Bay State's highest court requiring state recognition of same-sex marriages was an invitation to backlash with terrible consequences. Example: this week, Michigan was forced to end domestic partner benefits for state workers because of their state's anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, passed Nov. 2. Even so, it would be supremely wrong for the U.S. Supreme Court to have invalidated Massachusetts' decree. Ultimately, this is a state matter and must be left to the interplay of state legislatures, governors and courts. That's why the Bush administration is wrong to try to federalize marriage laws with an anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment that would bar any state from recognizing same-sex unions.
What was done wrong in Massachusetts cannot be easily undone
without making matters even worse, but there appears little chance
that any other state would now follow Massachusetts' lead and
decree the "M" word for gay couples. As my colleague Dale Carpenter
points out in his new column, the
California model is far more likely as an evolutionary
scenario, and one that's unlikely to galvanize the forces
of reaction in a way that sets back the clock on gay equality for
years to come.