Riba Rambles:
Musings of a Mental Magpie

Hang off, thou cat!

Not mine this time, but some insanely adorable kitty pictures that have been making the rounds. First spotted on the LJ of browngirl, who is currently inviting people to share their favorite chunks o'Shakespeare. Something fun to think about on a Friday.

And on that topic, massive congratulations to Elizabeth Bear, who just finished her behemoth Shakespearian fantasy. This is not a NaNoWriMo project, but something I desperately hope to see in bookstores sometime in the future. Brava!

I can hear music; sweet, sweet music...

Via several library LJ communities:

If you haven't discovered www.mp3.com you are almost out of time.

Tons of legal free music. It's been sold and goes out of business December 2nd, 2003.

Go now. download. find some obscure singers and musicians that you'll enjoy who's music will go away shortly.

So, if you want copies of songs by Tom Smith or Stanley Sagov or others, get 'em while you can.

Letter I sent to the Boston Herald

An article in today's Herald included the following paragraphs:

Whether it happens next week in Cambridge or across the state in May, the demand for same-sex marriage licenses is likely to be huge, if Vermont's experience with civil unions is any indication.

Vermont recorded 1,527 civil unions in the first six months after the groundbreaking law took effect in 2000. All but 335 of those civil unions were between out-of-staters, said Annette Cappy, town clerk of Brattleboro, Vt.

``We were very busy,'' Cappy recalled. ``I don't think there were two states that we didn't have somebody come from. We had people from Canada, Japan, Netherlands, England.''

Here is the letter I sent in reply, which I hope they will print.
[Note: The Boston Herald is a Rupert Murdoch-owned conservative paper. I've adjusted my tone to suit the audience.]

In Thomas Caywood's article today, he writes that in the first six months of civil unions, four-fifths of them were performed to out-of-staters. He seems to be warning that something similar could happen here if we legalize same sex marriages.

But Massachusetts laws already forbid marriages "by a party residing and intending to continue to reside in another jurisdiction if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction." The state penalizes any officials issuing such marriages and voids the marriage [MGL Chapter 207, Sections 11, 12 and 50].

Thus, what he describes in Vermont cannot happen here. When this ruling goes into effect, these laws will prevent Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of quickie gay weddings.

The SJC decision raises so many questions, it's nice we can put this fear to rest.

While I do personally wish that friends from other states can and will come to Massachusetts to get married, (a) that is one of the scare tactics being used to justify opposition to gay marriage, and (b) it honestly happens to be forbidden by current Massachusetts law.

Given how popular this argument seems to be (that's one of the reasons behind "Defense of Marriage" Acts) I think we need to familiarize ourselves with this aspect of Massachusetts law to reassure people who are still on the fence, as well as out-of-state opponents. As the ruling states:

The genius of our Federal system is that each State's Constitution has vitality specific to its own traditions, and that, subject to the minimum requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, each State is free to address difficult issues of individual liberty in the manner its own Constitution demands.

Blogging help we really need

Blogger Support is offering some really useful support tips in their Creative Tutorials Knowledgebase.

Their first entry was What to do if your Mom discovers your blog. They've just added How Not to Get Fired Because of Your Blog. Very useful advice, though IMO it could use some more info on trade secrets and avoiding accidental disclosures of intellectual property.

On a related note, Gary Turner has created a Web Fire Escape. Just like the "boss key" Infocom provided on some games. Click on the icon, and you can escape. The catch is that you choose your desired escape route, which will be saved in a browser cookie. If you don't choose or don't retain cookies, it takes you to Google by default. I suppose that's a good thing, so somebody doesn't redirect their fire escape to send you someplace obscene, but a blank Google query may not seem as useful under fire. Before I grokked that the app let you choose where to escape to (as opposed to a static link on my page that I chose), I tried to think of some page that would be safe and innocuous and reasonable for most users, an understandable site to visit from a manager's POV. The best I came up with was Microsoft Support. Use it if you wish.

[Both the Blogger support page and the Fire escape courtesy of Elayne.]

Political/Legal Question

I thought that election-related campaigning had to be kept off official government websites.

So why is Remarks by the Vice President at a Breakfast for Bush-Cheney '04 so prominent on Whitehouse.gov?

Civic pride

As I said earlier, over the next 180 days, there's going to be a whole lotta lobbying going on at Beacon Hill. I'm sure HRC and others will be working up form letters for supporters, meanwhile here's the email I sent to my State Rep and State Senator.

Hello. I am one of your constituents and I very much support the SJC's decision in Goodridge v. DPH. I support the right of same-sex couples to marry, and hope you will do the right thing by working to bring this about.

I realize that Finneran wields a lot of influence, but I adamantly oppose any attempt to amend the state constitution that would restrict the definition of marriage, thus denying basic rights to a segment of the population, solely because they are in the minority.

I know that national organizations will put you under a lot of pressure, but as the ruling states, we shouldn't let other states dictate how Massachusetts treats its own citizens. Especially since MGL Chapter 207, Sections 11, 12 and 50 already prohibit marrying residents of other states who are forbidden to marry in their home states.

In 2002 you helped defeat the "Protection of Marriage Amendment." This may be an even tougher fight. As someone who has voted for you in the past and hopes to continue voting for you in the future, I ask you to please do the right thing and legalize same-sex marriage.

Thank you very much.
          <signed with my real name, mailing address and phone number^*>

I strongly urge all my friends in Massachusetts: If you feel strongly about this issue, one way or the other, contact your legislators (go here if you don't know who they are or how to reach them) and tell them how you feel.

You have my permission to borrow any of the wording I've used above. You may also want to search to see what stance your legislators took the last time this issue came up. [Here's one source of info on one vote; further suggestions welcome!] I found evidence that the two from my district fought the constitutional amendment in the past, so felt I could take a much more general and positive tone. If your officials were on the other side, you may want to go into more detail on why it's so important to support this issue.

^*Very important tip when writing to your elected officials, even via email: it's a good idea to close with your name, mailing address and phone number. This lets them know that you're an actual constituent within their district, and will make your letter more influencial than anonymous missives from who-knows-where. This is also true when writing letters to your local paper.

Also, although they refer to Congress rather than local officials, I'd also like to remind readers about Working Assets' tips on communicating effectively with your elected officials. Good stuff.

---

In other interesting news:

As I was poking around the Massachusetts laws on marriage, I came across Chapter 207, Section 10, which reads:

If any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this commonwealth is disabled or prohibited from contracting marriage under the laws of this commonwealth and goes into another jurisdiction and there contracts a marriage prohibited and declared void by the laws of this commonwealth, such marriage shall be null and void for all purposes in this commonwealth with the same effect as though such prohibited marriage had been entered into in this commonwealth.

Does that mean what I think it means? Why did I never hear it mentioned during debates over a statewide Defense of Marriage Act? 'Cause it looks like that nullifies most of the issues a DOMA would cover.

Also in my web wanderings, I encountered opinions on the ruling from constitutional law experts Harvey Silverglate and Lawrence Tribe. Several quotes I thought particularly cogent, useful, or debatable:

• Silverglate
  • [I]t is up to courts to enforce constitutional rights when the other branches of government fail in their duty to do so, and the legislature has, indeed, failed.
  • [T]he SJC was able to point out that "the history of constitutional law is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded." (followed by a list of examples)
• Tribe
  • Tribe first noted that the decision was particularly well reasoned, running to over 40 pages in majority, concurrence and dissent. He encouraged the class to read the opinion in full- there are things there, he said, that could really change one's opinion, rather then make you passively or grudgingly accept that the court merely had authority to do what it did.
  • [Tribe] noted that he has advised (apparently somewhat desperate) members of the MA legislature that the 180 day period left by the court was not an invitation to overrule by statute but merely a courtesy; the court affirmatively legalized gay marriage today, not 180 days from now.
  • Also notable was Tribe's reference to what he called the particularly interesting concurrence of Justice Greaney. What he found especially appealing about this opinion was its claim that the gay marriage ban was straightforward sex discrimination, citing Loving v. Virginia as proof that mere symmetry does not equal constitutionality. However, he dismissed this version of the argument by noting that Loving was distinguishable at the very least on the grounds that that case involved more then 2 races, of which only 2 were constrained.
    • I would disagree with this assessment, because there are a minority of people who are intersexed. Likewise, transsexuals have encountered problems with marriage laws depending whether the courts look at their birth gender or current one.
  • He did then note, however, that there was a more subtle sex discrimination argument; if men and women are fungible, then it doesn't matter that there are 2 men or 2 women in a marriage. If they are not, and the rationale is that men and women are substantively different, then the state is thereby implicitly authorizing sex discrimination. However, he then noted that to his disappointment no one had raised this attack.

On the lighter side, here's editorial cartoonist Dan Wasserman's take on the ruling. Good for a smile.

Oh, cool -- the audio for the oral arguments in Lawrence v. Texas is now available online!

And, more later, when it won't be so buried in the Goodridge avalanche.

And some wonder, why wait?

From this morning's Boston Globe: the "Cambridge City Council will consider a proposal Monday night that would immediately authorize the city clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay couples."

In Massachusetts, wedding licenses are issued by the city or town. [Possibly another reason why the marriage laws talk about residency.] Most clerks intereviewed by the Globe expressed willingness to wait for the Legislature and Public Health department (which is "confident that [forms that include spaces provided for entries other than 'bride' and 'groom'] could be generated in the 180-day window provided by the court")

Meanwhile, Mary Bonauto, the lead lawyer representing the seven couples involved in yesterday's case, said she would refrain from urging cities and towns to issue licenses yet. 'I don't think we need to make a ruckus about this,' Bonauto said."

Last night, I heard a nonscientific poll on WBZ, taken after the ruling, that showed more than 50% support for gay marriage. And in a sign of progress, I'll close with this quote from today's Washington Post:

"I think I am okay with it," said Linda O'Brien, waiting tables Tuesday afternoon at Amrhein's restaurant, a haunt of South Boston politicians since the 1890s. "The whole thing's a little weird, but even so, the church should stay out of people's business."

[For those unfamiliar with Boston neighborhoods, Southie was a major player in the anti-bussing movements of the 1970s, and it was Southie's St. Patrick's Day Parade that went to the Supreme Court in 1995 to exclude gay marchers.]

Added later: Keep in mind who sponsored the poll when you read the results, but Demagogue found some very heartening numbers concerning Massachusetts voters.

Followups and Fun stuff

In response to my previous post, on Blogger Support's advice if one's mother should discover your blog, I received the following e-mail from one Abby Riba:

Read your blog as usual and the link about what to do when mom finds your blog. So when do I get a nice paragraph or so on your blog as to how wonderful & understanding I am? Do I need to embarass you and post my own comments on your blog?

No thanks, Mom. I'm perfectly capable of embarrassing myself on my own, but you're welcome to post your own comments. And I have told friends that I'm aware you and Dad read my blog, and that's it's been generally cool. [C'mon, guys, back me up here -- it's my mother!] But not everyone can have parents as wonderful and understanding as you guys are (unless you'd care to consider adopting some of my friends) so therefore I provided that link as a public service to those unfortunate few.

---

Meanwhile, I've been finding further information about the SJC ruling and Massachusetts law, which I'd like to share:

• Several people commented on the 180 day delay as a copout by the Leg. I recently read/heard somebody point out that this was a 4-3 decision, and suggest that might have been the compromise necessary to win over a recalcitrant fourth vote. Better a 4-3 decision with a 6 month wait on implementation than a 3-4 loss...
• President Bush has issued a statement on the decision. Here is what he said: "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
  I would like to point out to the president that sacred is defined as "concerned with religion or religious purposes." The First Amendment to the Constitution begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
  Therefore, if marriage is truly sacred, as the President said, then the government can have absolutely nothing to do with it. Civil marriage (which the SJC made very clear was all they were dealing with) is a wholly secular institution, and thus religion shouldn't enter into it, but civil rights laws and equal protection do.
• Speaking of which, today's Christian Science Monitor includes a chart listing major American religions, and their stance on same-sex marriages within their church. Pretty interesting.
• Regarding the quote by Connie Mackie of the FRC, "a clear case of the courts overruling the majority opinion of the people," Ian found some great quotes by the Founders on the dangers of tyranny of the majority, while Demagogue offers some different historical lessons on why we have an independent judiciary.
• The existing Massachusetts laws on marriage include this clause:

  Chapter 207: Section 11 Non-residents; marriages contrary to laws of domiciled state
  No marriage shall be contracted in this commonwealth by a party residing and intending to continue to reside in another jurisdiction if such marriage would be void if contracted in such other jurisdiction, and every marriage contracted in this commonwealth in violation hereof shall be null and void.

  Given the existence of DOMAs in other states, this would seem to preclude couples vacationing in MA solely to get hitched, then taking the legal battles back to their home states. May not be as beneficial from a tourism POV, but maybe it will allay some of the fears of the other 49 states, thus allowing Massachusetts to mind its own business. [first seen on Demagogue]
• For a more serious reason why same-sex couples need the right to marry, read this Senate testimony.
• On the lighter side, uncanny timing on Tom Tomorrow's Monday cartoon, eh?
  Also, two comments seen on other blogs that tickled my funny bone: On Atrios and Demagogue. Also, get a load of this Tom Stoppard quote, which cracked me up.
• At any rate, even though the Massachusetts Governor has spoken out against gay marriage in the past and worked for a constitutional amendment codifying heterosexual marriage, he's still going to do the right thing for the time being. As he's been quoted, several places, "We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the Supreme Judicial Court. Even if we don't agree with it, we're going to follow it in terms of preparing legislation. And we'll have legislation which conforms with the law. But we will, at the same time, initiate a constitutional amendment process. And that constitutional amendment process will be consistent with what I think the feelings are of the people of the commonwealth."
• And I guess I'll just close this section with another quote that's been making the rounds:

  "The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. We don't get to choose, and shouldn't be able to choose and say, 'You get to live free, but you don't.' And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard."

  -- Dick Cheney

---

Other oddities in the news:

• Remember my fantasy multipen I described coveting last month? On my drive home tonight, NPR's All Things Considered included a delightful essay by Adrian Legg on the joy of multitools, including what I clearly recognized as that pen. Worth listening to, as it's quite entertaining.
• Charles Laquidera shares some helpful exercise tips, along with this fun color test (I score 100% on it).
• Just in time for the holidays, Jones Soda is testmarketing a Turkey & Gravy flavored beverage. This is only a limited test launch, for the Washington and Michigan markets. I know I've got folks reading this in at least one of those states. Any chance I could talk you into buying a couple bottles and shipping them to me? I can either pay you back in cash or with Massachusetts delicacies you can't get by you. [via Mark Evanier]
• In the wake of a bad day, somebody tried to lighten up WeirdJews with a thread for sharing favorite Jewish jokes. Ian and I both contributed. [Due to problems with trolls, WeirdJews doesn't allow anonymous posters.]
• Finally, apparently via a unitarian group, have you filled out your Gd feedback form?

Tech support thinks of everything

This isn't an issue for me, but it may be useful for others reading this. BLOGGER Knowledge Base: What to do if your Mom discovers your blog...

The advice is well worth reading, even if you don't use Blogger. Link courtesy of Mathemagenic [via BT!]

Good news, bad news... and Old news is good news

The good news is I've written over 2400 words today -- the bad news, is that's only counting my blog posts here. Don't think I even touched my novel yet today. The horoscopic week is almost over, and with Ian working such long hours, I haven't been pampered to the extent I apparently need in order to focus on my NaNoWriMo novel.
Alas.

Meanwhile, here are three other stories, utterly unrelated to today's ruling, that I thought worthy of blogging:

Courtesy of Vicki Rosenzweig, Cyprus's national theatre plans to present the first production of Aeschylus' play about Achilles in more than 2000 years. The play was believed to be lost with the Library of Alexandria, but archaeologists have recently found excerpts on papyrus stuffed in Egyptian mummies. They don't have the entire original play, but experts are saying it's close.

Driving to pick Ian up from work last night, I heard a fascinating piece on The Connection on Mary Magdalene Reconsidered. Quoting from the webpage (which was also part of the host's introduction): Harvard professor Karen King, examines "The Gospel of Mary," a 2nd Century text that never made it into the New Testament canon. No hint of being a fallen woman, here Mary Magdalene is a forceful preacher, competing with male disciples for leadership in the early church." Fascinating stuff which may challenge a lot of traditional church doctrine. [If women can't be priests because only men were disciples, the existence of a female disciple rather undercuts that argument. Also, seems utterly plausible yet fascinating that men were so disturbed by the existence of a powerful female that they sullied her reputation and buried her works so well.] More on Mary Magdalen by listening to the show, or through Magdalene.org (who was the other guest on the program).

Finally, I love the cattiness inherent in this put-down by Jo Fish: "News for you boys in the 1600 Crew, there was civilization in Iraq while the Proto-WASPs were still making artwork on cave walls with excrement." When I read this aloud to Ian, he said he'd heard those rumors about the Skull & Bones Society.

On the Leg

Regarding the SJC passing the buck to the Legislature, a Washington Post online chat with president of the Boston Bar Assocation, Renee Landers, clears up several questions that were on my mind (emphasis mine):

Renee Landers: The Supreme Judicial Court's opinion essentially gives the legislature 180 days to enact amendments to Massachusetts statutes that would give effect to the court's opinion, that is, to recognize marriage in order to eliminate discriminations that attach to couples who are not permitted to marry. If the legislature does not enact appropriate amendments to the statutes within that time period, the Superior Court(the state trial court) would have the ability to enter an order implementing the SJC opinion. After 180 days, as a result of either legislative action or an order by the Superior Court, marriage licenses should begin to be granted to same-sex couples.

Another possibility would be for the legislature to begin the lengthy process for amending the state constitution to overrule the court's opinion. The process for amending the constitution calls for two successive legislatures to vote favorably on an amendment and for that amendment to be submitted to the voters after the legislative action is completed. At a minimum, this process takes 3 years. The earliest such an amendment could appear on the state ballot would be November 2006.

---

Cambridge, Mass.: In terms of sorting out the practical effect of the ruling, what will happen if the General Court fails to act within 180 days? Seems like the ruling will kick in, the common-law definition of marriage will change and same-sex marriage will finally become a reality.
For opponents of same-sex marriage, will this require them to pass a constitutional amendment or just a new statute?

Renee Landers: The last sentence of your question contains the answer. In order to avoid the impact of the SJC decision--which seems to require the state to grant the ability to marry to same-sex couples--the state would need to adopt an amendment to the state constitution. This process takes a minimum of three years to complete. Two successive state legislatures must adopt the proposed amendment and then the proposed amendment must be submitted to the voters for approval.

---

Washington, D.C.: What would happen if the legislature simply does nothing or votes to put an amendment before the voters in 2006 banning gay marriage? Would the courts demand the issuance of marriage licences after 180 days have passed?

Renee Landers: I think that the clear instruction in the court's opinion is that the Superior Court should issue an order to permit the granting of marriage licenses to same-sex couples if the legislature does not enact a statute to implement the decision within 180 days.

---

Renee Landers: Because the decision was based on the state constitution, the only way the decision could be overturned by a federal court would be for the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that same-sex marriage is not permitted by the federal constitution. I don't think that such a result is likely.

The citizens of Massachusetts could adopt a constitutional amendment overruling the court's opinion. That process takes a minimum of three years. The process requires two successive state legislatures to act favorably on a proposed amendment and for the voters to approve the amendment.

So, even though the SJC bumped it back to the legislature, that may not be as much of an obstacle as some doom-and-gloom types are making it out to be.

Lots of other good stuff, but I just wanted to touch upon the Leg's ability to undo the ruling. I recommend reading the rest of the transcript for context.

BTW, 180 days means it should be legal in time for Noreascon 4 / Boston WorldCon. I know a few distant friends who were debating whether to attend; here's some added incentive...
Come to think of it, Canada legalized gay marriage only a few months before TorCon... Could there be a correllation? WorldCon 2005 is in Scotland. What's the state of gay marriage there? And in 2006, California!

Word gets around

Salon.com published my letter about Madonna's new book.

Also, I sent Eugene Volokh some comments on his entry on today's SJC decision, and he's updated his post with the info I provided (scroll down).

Neither one links to my site, so probably no bump to my hitcount, but it's nice to know I'm being heard, at any rate.

Oops, almost forgot to mention helping Ian track down a particular historic quote for his post on the subject, even though he didn't give me credit. But then, as my husband, he's allowed to take me for granted in certain circumstances. :)

And in related news

Research at Dartmouth has shown that prejudice makes one stupider.

According to the findings, the more biased people are, the more their brain power is taxed by contact with someone of another race, as they struggle not to say or do anything offensive. The effect is so strong, the team found, that even a five-minute conversation with a black person left some of the white subjects unable to perform well on a test of cognitive ability.

They demonstrated this using first a combination of psychological tests and then MRIs to measure brain activities to see what was going on internally. Here's my favorite line from the article (emphasis mine):

The report is the first time that researchers have shown a connection between racial bias and the parts of the brain responsible for higher functions, according to several neuroscientists who were not involved in the research.

I didn't even know there was one...

I'll leave the Dartmouth jokes to you guys.

The true danger of same-sex marriage

And, on the sillier side of the ruling, any bets on when the first slash fanfic to include a trip to Massachusetts will be available? [I've already read one story where Draco moved to Canada, but that was het.] I can just picture it now...

Severus Snape glanced at the brochure: "Salem is for lovers" The two hunky wizards on the cover winked, kissed and flashed their matching rings whilie two witches dressed in white laughingly threw their bouquet towards the camera.
"POTTER!!!"

So ordered.

A few choice excerpts from the decision, for those of you who may be debating this issue in other fora:

Simply put, the government creates civil marriage. In Massachusetts, civil marriage is, and since pre-Colonial days has been, precisely what its name implies: a wholly secular institution. <snip> No religious ceremony has ever been required to validate a Massachusetts marriage.

---

The benefits accessible only by way of a marriage license are enormous, touching nearly every aspect of life and death. The department states that "hundreds of statutes" are related to marriage and to marital benefits.

---

If procreation were a necessary component of civil marriage, our statutes would draw a tighter circle around the permissible bounds of nonmarital child bearing and the creation of families by noncoital means. <snip> 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.

---

The department has offered no evidence that forbidding marriage to people of the same sex will increase the number of couples choosing to enter into opposite-sex marriages in order to have and raise children. There is thus no rational relationship between the marriage statute and the Commonwealth's proffered goal of protecting the "optimal" child rearing unit. Moreover, the department readily concedes that people in same-sex couples may be "excellent" parents. These couples (including four of the plaintiff couples) have children for the reasons others do -- to love them, to care for them, to nurture them. But the task of child rearing for same-sex couples is made infinitely harder by their status as outliers to the marriage laws. <snip> Excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage will not make children of opposite-sex marriages more secure, but it does prevent children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of "a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized."

---

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 department] argues that broadening civil marriage to include same-sex couples will trivialize or destroy the institution of marriage as it has historically been fashioned. Certainly our decision today marks a significant change in the definition of marriage as it has been inherited from the common law, and understood by many societies for centuries. But it does not disturb the fundamental value of marriage in our society.

---

Here, 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.

---

We also reject the argument suggested by the department, and elaborated by some amici, that expanding the institution of civil marriage in Massachusetts to include same-sex couples will lead to interstate conflict. We would not presume to dictate how another State should respond to today's decision. But neither should considerations of comity prevent us from according Massachusetts residents the full measure of protection available under the Massachusetts Constitution. The genius of our Federal system is that each State's Constitution has vitality specific to its own traditions, and that, subject to the minimum requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, each State is free to address difficult issues of individual liberty in the manner its own Constitution demands.

---

We are concerned only with the withholding of the benefits, protections, and obligations of civil marriage from a certain class of persons for invalid reasons. Our decision in no way limits the rights of individuals to refuse to marry persons of the same sex for religious or any other reasons. It in no way limits the personal freedom to disapprove of, or to encourage others to disapprove of, same-sex marriage. Our concern, rather, is whether historical, cultural, religious, or other reasons permit the State to impose limits on personal beliefs concerning whom a person should marry.

---

From one of the opinions in Baker v. State, which led the way towards civil unions in Vermont: "A woman is denied the right to marry another woman because her would-be partner is a woman, not because one or both are lesbians. Similarly, a man is denied the right to marry another man because his would-be partner is a man, not because one or both are gay. Thus, an individual's right to marry a person of the same sex is prohibited solely on the basis of sex, not on the basis of sexual orientation. Indeed, sexual orientation does not appear as a qualification for marriage under the marriage statutes. The State makes no inquiry into the sexual practices or identities of a couple seeking a license."

---

Because marriage is, by all accounts, the cornerstone of our social structure, as well as the defining relationship in our personal lives, confining eligibility in the institution, and all of its accompanying benefits and responsibilities, to opposite-sex couples is basely unfair. To justify the restriction in our marriage laws by accusing the plaintiffs of attempting to change the institution of marriage itself, terminates the debate at the outset without any accompanying reasoned analysis.

---

The Massachusetts Constitution was never meant to create dogma that adopts inflexible views of one time to deny lawful rights to those who live in another.

---

We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.

So, not so good for those who wish to legalize polygamy, but some good soundbites overall.

Breaking News: Same Sex Marriage legalized in Massachusetts

They just ruled.

Details and links shortly...

Updated 10:20 AM:

Much thanks to Sadly, No for excerpting the decision (given how overloaded Westlaw and other legal news sites are right now). Emphasis mine:

Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. 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.

NPR says the decision will be officially posted here, at the SJC's site, but I don't see it yet.

Other news stories say the court has ordered the Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days.

Keep in mind, some in the legislature have been pushing a Defense of Marriage Act within Massachusetts -- now, that would require a constitutional amendment. But there's still going to be a lot of pressure on Massachusetts from the conservatives nationwide to hold firm and not break ranks.

We, the voters in Massachusetts, are going to be more influencial than outside voices. We need to call our reps and senators and let them know we support the right for everyone and anyone to get married. Enter your address at Where Do I Vote MA to find out who your elected officials are. Then let them know how you feel and that their decision on this will affect your vote.

More on this later, from all over the newsmedia, I'm sure.

Added 11:01 AM: Boston.com provided this link to the full text of the decision.

Hail Britannia

By the way, to anyone reading this in the UK, and particularly those in London,

You have my sympathies for all the trouble he's putting you through with his security demands and my embarrassment over his rudeness. At least you only have to deal with him for a week...

BTW, nifty site I found while working on my NaNoWriMo story: American·British - British·American Dictionary. We are truly two countries separated by a common language. [One of my favorite (favourite?) examples of the difference is the sentence "I'm mad about the flat."] Before I send my story on to Beta readers and post it to FictionAlley, I do intend to do the honourable thing and anglicize it (or at least, de-Americanize it).

Shazbot!

Just warning people -- after this or the next scene I'm thinking of taking the rest of my NaNoWriMo story private.

See, I have a huge jumble of scenes in my head that I know need to happen before the dramatic conclusion, but I don't really have a good feel for what order they'll occur in. Some may need some minor lead-in scenes for them to make sense, and others I just have in isolation at the moment.

Now, I could try to work out the chronological timeframe for them all and interweave them into more seamless transitions, but that's going to seriously cut into my writing time, what with it being just 13 days from the end of the month.

So, I may take it offline for a while. That will allow me to just write the scenes in whatever order they occur to me, without having to worry about continuity or transitions or (in some cases) being subtle and hiding the hints amid a sea of red herrings, until I get to my grand conclusion.

Then, after I get all that worked out, I can go back and finesse what happens when the rest of the school year.

But if I try to organize it now, I won't finish by the end of the month, and if I try to finish by the end of the month some majorly ugly seams will show, making some elements too obvious while other developments may seem to come out of left field.

Those of you who are reading the story, please discuss.

Monday Monday

Okay, I don't know what the hell happened to my blogroll. All of a sudden, all the links have turned to "Laura's Blog" (I'm not going to dignify her with hits by sharing her URL. Did somebody figure out a way to spam Blogrolling? I hope to hell that this is just a temporary glitch and I haven't just lost all my links. Otherwise, I'm going to be very very ticked off.

Also, as a followup to my previous entry on Madonna's new book, Ian pointed out that not only was she telling the classic story poorly, but she was getting the lesson wrong.

Just to refresh, here's the summary as described by Salon:

Mr. Peabody is a schoolteacher and baseball coach. One day, a boy named Tommy Tittlebottom sees Peabody apparently steal an apple from the local grocer. He tells his friends. Soon the whole town believes their beloved teacher is a thief. As soon as he hears about it, Peabody proves his innocence. The grocer confirms that Peabody pays in advance each week for an apple a day.

And what's wrong with this scenario?

1. First of all, one of the stated exceptions in the laws of Lashon Hara (literally "evil tongue", loosely referring to gossip) is when one sees a crime committed. So, by Jewish Law, if the boy did think he saw the teacher stealing, it's perfectly acceptable for him to speak out about it.
2. Second, because the teacher is a role model, he shouldn't have entered into that agreement with the grocer anyway. There's a certain obligation on role models to avoid doing things that might look bad, just because observers might get the wrong impression. [For example, very frum Jews who dress in traditional outfits will avoid going into McDonalds, even if they just want a Coke to drink, because others who witness this may think eating in McDonalds is okay.]

So not only is it a tale told by an idiot, but the sound and fury teaches the wrong lesson! And that may be worse than signifying nothing...

Added slightly later: Yup, just found similar comments about "Laura's Blog" in BlogsCanada : Officially Unofficial. The BlogRolling problem seems to be widespread. If this persists, I may take down my Blogroll, but I'd hate to have to republish my entire site...

Added 11:44 AM: Oh whew,