BY DAN
KENNEDY
Serving the reality-based community since 2002.
Notes and observations on
the press, politics, culture, technology, and more. To sign up for
e-mail delivery, click
here. To send
an e-mail to Dan Kennedy, click
here.
For bio, published work, and links to other blogs, visit
www.dankennedy.net.
Thursday, November 20, 2003
So, Mitt, what was it that
happened in 1000 BC anyway? It seems that every time Governor
Mitt Romney opens his mouth to denounce same-sex marriage, he makes
the same observation: that the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling goes
against 3000 years of tradition.
For instance, here
is what he said on the Today show on Wednesday morning,
according to this morning's Boston Globe:
I agree with 3000 years of
recorded human history, which frankly is a contradiction of what
the majority of the Supreme Judicial Court said. Of course, at the
same time, we should [be] providing the necessary civil
rights and certain appropriate benefits.
What does this mean? What great
event happened in 1000 BC that allows Romney to refer to "3000 years
of recorded history"? He hasn't said. Yet not only is no one
questioning him, others are agreeing.
Globe columnist Adrian
Walker, who supports same-sex marriage, writes
today, "Governor Mitt Romney, who wasted no time stating his
opposition to the ruling, thundered that his position has 3,000 years
of history behind it. That's true ..."
It is? Says who? What facts can
anyone point to showing that marriage as we know it did not exist in,
say, 1200 BC, but was a thriving institution by 800 BC? What is
Romney talking about?
If anyone knows, pass along your
thoughts to Media Log at dkennedy[a]phx.com.
In other news on the
same-sex-marriage front:
-- There's no sense debating
Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby on the merits of gay marriage.
He's against it, and he's not going to change his mind. Today,
though, he makes
an unsupportable assertion: that the way was paved by earlier steps
such as the Equal Rights Amendment (passed in Massachusetts, though
never made part of the US Constitution) and the state's gay-rights
law. Thus, he argues, the Goodridge decision will inevitably
lead to constitutional protections for, say, three-partner marriage,
or for incest.
That is, on its face, ridiculous.
The SJC did not base its legal reasoning in any way on those earlier
actions. What led to this week's landmark decision was not a
"slippery slope," as Jacoby contends, but, rather, a radical change
in cultural mores -- a change for the good.
I suppose it is possible that, one
day, those mores will change again to embrace polygamy,
brother-sister marriage, whatever. (I hope not.) But if it happens,
Goodridge will have absolutely nothing to do with
that.
-- Supporters of same-sex marriage
face a terrible dilemma. Marriage is now their constitutional right,
and they have every reason to insist on it, and not to let the
legislature and the governor to water it down with a civil-unions
law, as seems likely (Globe coverage here;
Herald coverage here).
Yet, if civil unions were to become
law and the SJC were to rule that they were close enough, that would
forestall the very strong possibility that the voters will pass a
constitutional amendment in 2006 that would ban same-sex marriages,
civil unions, even basic domestic-partnership rights.
Principle matters, which is why I
hope the gay and lesbian community holds out for nothing short of
full marriage. But I worry about the consequences.
Here
is an analysis of what may or may not happen on Beacon Hill by the
Phoenix's Kristen Lombardi and Susan Ryan-Vollmar.
-- Editorial round-up: the
New
York Times gives
same-sex marriage a thumbs-up; the Washington
Post is sympathetic but
muddled; the Wall
Street Journal is
against it (sub. req., but here's the lowlight: "It is four liberal
judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court who, egged on by
well-connected and politically powerful gay rights activists, have
imposed their own moral values on the rest of its citizens."); the
Los
Angeles Times is for
it, but worried about a backlash; and USA
Today, weighing in
yesterday, is dubious, and also worried about a backlash.
Yesterday, the Globe said
yes
and the Herald said no,
although it appears sympathetic to civil unions.
New in this week's
Phoenix. A new book on Howard Dean is the result of
an
unusual collaboration
between two of Vermont's most respected independent media
institutions.
Also, speculation over
what's
next at the newly downsized
Boston Herald.
posted at 9:20 AM |
|
link
MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES
Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.