Yesterday's landmark decision in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled that the banning of same-sex marriages was unconstitutional, has been met by the cheers of gays, supporters and activists across the country.
But for every supporter, it seems there are two - particularly vocal - opponents.
The ruling has been met with the scorn of more than a few Massachusetts politicians and members of the clergy, including Republican Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who issued a statement saying he will push to make a Constitutional amendment to limit marriage to between a man and a woman.
"Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. The exact equivalent to marriage is also reserved to a man and a woman. Over the next several months, I will work with legislative leadership and other legislators and community leaders to decide what kind of statute we can fashion, which is consistent with the law," he said in the statement Tuesday.
I don't know what diluted liberal world I thought I was living in, but I thought this decision was a step in the right direction. I didn't know we were aiming to step backward in time.
But wait, if we look at his campaign platform from 2002, Romney was actually for equal rights for same sex partners, just not for marriage.
"All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation," stated his 2002 campaign Web site. "While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship."
So he'll give them dental, but won't let them cement their relationship.
Other opposition came, not surprisingly, from the church, as the leader of the Boston Archdiocese, Archbishop Sean O'Malley, blasted gay unions.
"It is alarming that the Supreme Judicial Court has cast aside the very definition of marriage held by people for thousands of years," O'Malley stated in a release issued last week. "My hope is that legislators will have the courage and common sense to redress this situation for the good of society."
Now, I understand that I grew up in a pretty liberal household, and since my stepbrother came out of the closet at age 16, homosexuality has been a normal part of my life. But I don't think it's just me. I think more and more of our peers are recognizing and accepting gay relationships as a standard part of society.
The Pew Research Center released a poll on Tuesday citing that Americans are divided on the issue of gay marriages, specifically based on age. While the study found that people our age are split down the middle about the topic, people between the ages of 60 and 70 opposed it by a whopping 4-1 margin.
Romney, 56, fits the bill of both a conservative trying to appeal to a mass audience with moderate viewpoints and an ultra-religious figure within the community. Romney, a Mormon, sent all five of his sons to Brigham Young, according to his campaign biography.
And I understand that a mid-50s Mormon will probably not be the one to usher in the next era in gay rights, but what I'm saying is that now more than ever it is socially time to continue forward, not retreat. Now is not the time to ponder the reversal of Affirmative Action. Now is not the time to stage a massive assault in the area of gay rights.
Now is the time for action, and now is the time when the college aged 50 percent of the Pew Center poll need to remain pointed toward the future.
