What has happened in MA since the gays got married?

Not much.  From Think Progress, we learn that 85% of MA voters say, no big deal.

[Marriage equality has not turned society inside out, nor has the promised parade of horribles has not come to pass. Massachusetts now has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, same-sex families now enjoy full legal protections, and the Boston Red Sox have the best record in Major League Baseball. 

And even 66 percent of Massachusetts Republicans concede marriage equality has had no negative effect on them. According to the PPP poll, Massachusetts voters now support same-sex marriage by an overwhelming 60 to 29 percent margin.

So, we do know what happens when Teh Gayz marry.

Gays marry.

End.

DOMA on trial

Today, there is an appeal in the 1st circuit federal court about DOMA. This follows up on the Gill.... case where legally married lesbians and gays in MA claim it is unconstitutional to deny them benefits that are given to their fellow MA citizens. The original district court agreed. Now, it's up at the 1st circuit, where the DoJ is arguing against DOMA and your tax dollars via Speaker John Boehner are paying to support DOMA. Incidentally, here's a nice little irony: Paul Clement, the lawyer arguing that DOMA is a perfectly legitimate intrusion of the federal government into a state's right to determine who is or isn't legally married, is the same attorney who argued that the Affordable Care Act is an unreasonable intrusion of the federal government into states' rights. Complete background from the estimable Poliglot here.

Why it matters: marriage is good for your health

From the Boston Globe:

It turns out that legal marriage for gay couples reduces reliance on health care and decreases medical expenses, according to a new study being published in the American Journal of Public Health. 

Researchers analyzed health data from a group of gay men in Massachusetts for the twelve months before and the twelve months following the legalization of civil marriage for same-sex couples in mid-2003. 

The results? 

The number of visits to health care facilities dropped significantly. Accompanying costs went down as well. 

How can this be?  Because when you are an equal citizen, and have equal rights, a very significant source of stress and ill health in your life is eliminated.

Marriage is good for people.  Shouldn't we encourage stable relationships and mutual respect?

Why DoJ appealing the DOMA decision could be a GOOD thing

Lots of the gay press is upset that the DoJ is going to appeal the DOMA decision in Massachusetts. Let's review: two cases from the Bay State addressed the unequal treatment of legally married Massachusetts residents by the federal government. (The federal government considers legally married gay couples to be unmarried cohabiting couples and therefore ineligible for any federal benefits e.g., pensions, etc)

Judge Tauro found that the clause of DOMA that applies to federal recognition of such marriages to be unconstitutional. Basically he said that the US can't treat gay citizens married legally in their home state differently from their straight neighbors. Married is married.

But here's the rub. Right now, this ruling only applies to Massachusetts. It does not affect anyone else. Which is great, for the Massachusetts couples, but for this legally married lesbian Californian, doesn't change anything.

The only way this will affect anyone else is (you guessed it) the appeals process. If our side wins the next step, then it applies to all the states in the First District. I'm sure those married in New Hampshire and Vermont would appreciate that. And of course, if it goes further to the Supremes....

So rather than wring your hands that the DoJ appealed, consider that that's the ONLY way to take down this odious law nation-wide. More from this GLAD FAQ.

The legislative branch no longer participates in government. They exist only in a sound-bite campaign mode of obstructionism and grandstanding. We cannot expect them to do anything. THe only hope is the courts, because the judiciary appear to be the only branch of government that still functions.

Catholic school fires lesbian for marrying her partner

Same sex marriage may be legal in Massachusetts but it's a problem for the Roman Catholic church.

Christine M. Judd, who served as athletic director and dean of students, said she is no longer an employee of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield school system after a meeting Wednesday with administrators of the Catholic high school.

The diocese listed her departure as a resignation, but Judd said she is still exploring her legal options.

“I was given a choice of termination or resignation,” Judd said. “I’m hurt, but I wish nothing but the best for Cathedral, its students, the parents, the athletic teams, administration and faculty. I bleed purple (the school’s color).”...

“I married my partner this summer,” Judd said. “I was hoping that my loyalty, my professionalism the last 12 years would supersede the current hypocrisy that has already been shown with the Diocese of Springfield.”

Asked to elaborate on her claim of hypocrisy, Judd said she questions if there are lay persons who work for the Catholic diocese who divorce and remarry without an annulment, or employees who use birth control, or men who have had vasectomies, or individuals who are pro-choice on abortion.

A private school is entitled to employ who it wants. So I suspect that Ms Judd is out of luck on this one. But I applaud her for pointing out the hypocrisy and selective enforcement of matters of doctrine. And for making it public.

So, when will the Diocese ask how all those families have only 1 or 2 children? When will they fire a woman teacher for picking up The Pill at the pharmacy? When will they comb the files for re-married parents and employees so they can fire them? After all, if it's just a matter of doctrine, then being gay should be no different than any other act of sexual immorality, right?

Right?

Breaking: part of DOMA unconstitutional

Judgment on the Massachusetts cases that were challenging DOMA's effects on legally married Massachusetts citizens. I'll write more later, meanwhile check out the Advocate or the Prop8trialtracker.

Massachusetts sues over DOMA

Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country. So it appears that letting its gay citizens participate in the formal commitment of marriage has not caused a massive destruction of the institution.

The Attorney General of the Bay State has become annoyed that the Federal Government treats legally married Massachusetts citizens unequally, and is challenging DOMA on those grounds.

"Our familes, our communities, and even our economy have seen the many important benefits that have come from recognizing equal marriage rights and, frankly, no downside," Attorney General Martha Coakley said this afternoon at a news conference announcing the lawsuit. "However, we have also seen how many of our married residents and their families are being hurt by a discriminatory, unprecedented, and, we believe, unconstitutional law."

The suit filed in US District Court in Boston claims that the Congress, in enacting the DOMA, "overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people."

At a news conference, Coakley said:

"They are entitled to equal treatment under the laws regardless of whether they are gay or straight."

Way to go, Massachusetts.

For shame, California! For shame!

Update: The Volokh Conspiracy points out this is a very different case from Olson and Boies:

The lawsuit is different from other pending challenges to Section 3, see here and here, because it's brought by a state, not gay couples, and because the core issue is federalism, not individual rights.

, although it sees some danger in this by potentially accelerating a federal, rather than state definition of marriage.

Same sex marriages accepted in MA

In a new article from the AP, we find out that, guess what? Gay marriage is no longer a big deal in Massachusetts.

"Holy cow, the sky hasn't fallen." That assessment of five years of same-sex marriage came from Jennifer Chrisler, who advocates for gay and lesbian parents as head of the Boston-based Family Equality Council.

And politicians who supported it survived:

One of the striking developments, since 2004, is the fading away of opposition to gay marriage among elected officials in Massachusetts. When the state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, there seemed to be sufficient support in the Legislature for a ballot measure that would overturn the decision. But efforts to unseat pro-gay-marriage legislators floundered; a gay-marriage supporter, Deval Patrick, was elected governor; and a climactic push for a referendum was rejected by lawmakers in 2007 by a 151-45 vote.....

The near-consensus now among political leaders is a far cry from 2003-04, when the debate was wrenching for legislators such as Sen. Marian Walsh. Her district, including parts of Boston and some close-in suburbs, is heavily Catholic and socially conservative, so when same-sex marriage became a public issue, "there wasn't an appetite to discuss it, let alone support it," Walsh said.....

"It was a lot of hard work," she said. "I came to the decision that it really is a civil right — that the constitution was there to protect rights, not to diminish rights."

She described the reaction as a "firestorm" — embittered constituents, hate mail and death threats, rebukes from Catholic clergy, but she won re-election in 2004 and again in 2006 over challengers who opposed gay marriage.

Of course there are still those opposed, but they are fighting a rearguard action. Gay families in MA are protected, and that's the important thing. Are you listening, California?