Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 20, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Drought Adds to Syria’s Misery

The Divide

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Ear to the Ground

Gay Marriage Taking New England by Storm

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jan 13, 2009
Flickr / laverrue

Wedding cake figurines.

New England is becoming a gay marriage zone. Five of the six states already have protections for gay couples, and state lawmakers and groups like Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders are pushing for full marriage rights in all six by 2012. Beyond human rights, that could mean big bucks for the region.


M.V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts’ Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, led a study released in July that said over the next three years about 32,200 same-sex couples would travel from other states to marry in Massachusetts.

That would translate into 330 jobs and a $111 million boost to the state’s economy, the study projects.

Read more

More Below the Ad


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By John W Beck, February 23, 2009 at 6:42 am Link to this comment

As a happily married gay man in Massachusetts, I can tell my population dwindling state I brought in at least 1 more resident! My husband moved here from Iowa to be with me. I also have 2 sisters, one of whom is married to another woman (and my other sister is married to a man) and it’s my gay sister who has a kid! She and her wife adopted my niece from Cambodia a few years ago (another +1 resident for Massachusetts). Do the folk who seek to deny gays the ‘right’ to marry because we can’t biologically produce offspring also say sterile heterosexuals can’t marry? By their argument, that’s what they’re saying, but I NEVER hear them spout that particular bit of nonsense.

But aside from the population and economic arguments, I am happy to have been born to a state that actually follows it’s state Constitution, that we are all told to honor and respect. It is more than nice to have the same rights as my fellow tax paying heterosexual citizens, though tax time can be a pain - having to figure out both married and single forms for the Feds as frightened and adolescent Legislatures passed that damnable (so called) Defense of Marriage Act. State tax forms feed off the Federal tax forms, so to get the numbers I need to figure them out both ways. Perhaps our elegant new President will address this in the next 4 years.

I do not understand why ‘they’ wanted to defend marriage against love anyway, but I guess stranger things have happened in this country. It was also nice to hear Sean Penn’s acceptance speech last night at the Oscars. I predict the CA Supreme Court will overturn Prop 8 as a revision of the CA state constitution, (it actually took away so-called ‘inalienable rights’ from a class of people) not a simple amendment, and that needs initial action by the state legislature, which it never got. I give thanks our country is moving back towards the middle, after so long shifting to ‘the right’. And nearly all of us have a seat at the table in the middle.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, January 18, 2009 at 8:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Pardon me, but with 6.5 Billion people on the planet, maybe marriage should be banned among “straights” perhaps opposite genders should be assigned separate continents???  Or separate planets?

OK, Yeah, I know… BUT since others have this competing stupid idea…..

Report this

By mike112769, January 14, 2009 at 6:15 pm Link to this comment

Cornerstone: Marriage is not just about children. It is also about a lifelong bond of love and respect between two people. Are you saying that homosexuals are incapable of this? If marriage was simply for children, it would be for better, for worse, for richer and poorer and until the children turn eighteen. Also, look into spell checker. You will not be taken seriously by most people if you cannot spell out your argument correctly. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. I’m sure you have a brain, but did you notice Casy’s response? He or she didn’t bother refuting your argument, but presumed you were an idiot due to your spelling.

Report this

By Casy, January 14, 2009 at 5:53 pm Link to this comment

Posted by Cornerstone—

“As soon as a gay couple can procreate without outside help, i.e. not adoption, no medical intervention, no doner (sic) sperm, etc, then gay marraige (sic) should be legal.

Gays should not be discrimated (sic) against but until two females or two males having sex can create a child, then marraige (sic) should not be allowed.”

By the same token, Cornerstone should refrain from posting comments on any website until he/she develops a fully formed brain.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 14, 2009 at 10:05 am Link to this comment

Hurray for New England! Prop. 8 is not going to stop gay marriage in California for long, either.

To Cornerstone:  gay couples cannot procreate. That’s for us “breeders”. But gay couples who want children can and should adopt. Studies show that gay couples tend to be better, more responsible, more caring parents than heterosexuals.

Report this

By Jim Yell, January 14, 2009 at 8:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Marriage in the civil sense should certainly be available to all couples just because of the legal protections it affords.

But, it should be realized that marriage doesn’t necessarily protect a bond or assure the survival of a bond between two people, otherwise the hetro marriage/divorce cycle would not be so grim.

Speaking as once a child of divorced parents I must assure people that it is better to divorce than to remain hostage to a ritual, once that bond has become not a celebration of togetherness, but a dead end of hostility and negative emotions and isolation.

For gays while you were obsessing about being married you may have missed Dr. Phil show casing a maniac supposed Dr. talking about forcing assumed sexual roles upon children who show signs of being free spirits and by extention considers gays to be incomplete humans, who should be forced to straightness.

I admit that I didn’t see how well the opposition responded to this luny, but I can tell you from a life time I have seen the religious presenting the most creepy people as proof of cure of homosexuality, when what they were showing is repression amongst people that were obviously very disturbed. They are not representitive of the majority of gay people and gained no good from repressing their sexuality. Time would be better spent in training them to be resonsible, not to be hypocrites.

I have seen plenty of people who have been cured of homosexuality, have raised families and then in later life decided that it just wasn’t worth it to live a lie and so late in life freed themselves to live who they always were.

I don’t think couples need to be validated by a public ritual, but I can see the wish to have their bonding recognized by law so that in event where someone needs to be responsible for them it will be the person they love and not the hateful family that caused them grief.

Report this

By Skruff, January 14, 2009 at 7:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

New England was once the most religious part of the nation, but after our flirtation with witches, mass killing of cate, legislating morality as in “Blue laws” wa have graduated into reality.

This doesn’t mean we’ve banned religion, it just means that after having “The Church” run lives for 300 years, we have decided to let people run their own…. lives that is.. We’re also “flinty” we give fewer dollars to “charity” than any region of the Country (Mississippi gives the most per capita)

So, welcome gays, married or not. I won’t mess with your lifestyle if you don’t mess with mine… BUT I’m not paying for streetlights in front of your house.

Report this

By mike112769, January 14, 2009 at 5:14 am Link to this comment

I really don’t see anything wrong with gay marriage. The ones who are against it oppose it for mainly religious reasons. I thought we were supposed to keep politics and religion separate? Seems a bit like racism to me. Denying someone a right that you have because they are different from you is wrong. Please don’t give me the ridiculous argument about it leading to people marrying animals. A person is not an animal. I bet homosexual divorce rates would be on par (or slightly lower) than heterosexuals’ divorce rates.

Report this

By Cornerstone, January 14, 2009 at 5:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As soon as a gay couple can procreate without outside help, i.e. not adoption, no medical intervention, no doner sperm, etc, then gay marraige should be legal.

Gays should not be discrimated against but until two females or two males having sex can create a child, then marraige should not be allowed.

Report this

sign up to get updates

Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.