Mass. Supreme Court Rules - Gay Couples have the Right to Marry

FoxNews | 11-18-03 | FoxNews

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

Mass. Supreme Court rules that illegal for state to deny marriage license to gay couples.

[Rutles4Ever]

WHY are you against it? What's the basis for your opposition to bigamy?

[jwalsh07]

What is your question?

Are you joking?

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Let me guess.......

You're a BARTCOP plant?

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Actually you are correct. The court threw it back to the legislature stating that there is no reason not to allow same-sex marriage licenses and giving them 180 days to "clean up their act". Absent the legislature enacting some type of defense of marriage act, it would seem that they will be compelled to allow these unions.

[ZULU]

NOTHING coming out of Kennedyland would surprise me.

John Kennedy would turn over in his grave if he realized the kind of leftist lunacy embraced by his family after his death.

[Skooz]

Well, I demand to be addressed as "Doctor" now.

I am henceforth to be addressed as "Royal Majesty" seeing as I have now declared myself Emperor of the United States and Autocrat of all the Americas for Life.

The Skooz dynasty has begun. Bask in the presence of the new Sun King.

Give alms, and stuff.

[apackof2]

If they throw rice after a marriage ceremony symbolizing fertility, what would they throw after a gay marriage?

turkey basters

And so continues the slide towards perdition.....

[4CJ]

This ruling is enough to make one puke. Hopefully, one of the judges will be nearby & available for "commentary".

[gridlock]

Dysfunctional liberal government can only destroy marriage and society.

This is true, of course. The problem is that our government is both disfunctional and liberal. Even if by some miracle this were not the case, our government would still have the tendency to become disfuctional and liberal again.

Men can only be moral if they are given the option of being immoral. Government definition and regulation of marriage is an attempt by government to define and control morality.

We must free the people to make their own choices. The vast majority will make the right choice. Absent the force of government, the forces of social normalcy will win every time.

[MineralMan]

"What about having multiple wives? Where does it stop? The definition of marriage -- the accepted social norm for thousands of years -- came from the Word of God -- our moral code."

What about multiple wives. They existed both in Old and New Testament times. They were part of Biblical history. Nowhere in the Bible is multiple wives forbidden, except in one case where Bishops of the early church were called to be the "husband of one wife."

Plural marriage is perfectly acceptable, Biblically.

[jwalsh07]

Justice Spina, in a separately filed dissenting opinion, stated that "[W]hat is at stake in this case is not the unequal treat..nt of individuals or whether individuals rights have been impermissibly burdened, but the power of the Legislature to effectuate social change without interference from the courts, pursuant to art. 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights." He emphasized that the "power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not with the judiciary."

This guy got it exactly right. I don't know what side of the politcal spectrum he hails from but we need more Judges like him, that's for damn sure.

[cajungirl]

I think it is abusive to women. Every woman deserves her own husband to have full time rights to nag. I think it is abusive to children, they deserve their full time father. I think polygymists are outlaws. I never met one. Polygymists marry under age girls, they use religion to abuse their wives and children.

[MineralMan]

"Obviously, we will need legislation allowing a conscience clause for churches that disagree with homosexual marriage."

Nobody would object to that. One can be married in every state of this country without access to any clergyperson. Some churches, I suppose, will perform such marriages. Others will not. No biggie for anyone.

[jwalsh07]

I think it is abusive to women. Every woman deserves her own husband to have full time rights to nag. I think it is abusive to children, they deserve their full time father. I think polygymists are outlaws. I never met one. Polygymists marry under age girls, they use religion to abuse their wives and children.

Oh Lord, how judgemental. Are you a Neanaderthal also?

[cajungirl]

Who is Bartcop? And why did he plant me. I have been here a very long time my dear man.

[ppaul]

TODAY.....

Mass. gay marriage ban overturned BREAKING NEWS, Associated Press Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution, but stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law. The Supreme Judicial Court's 4-3 ruling ordered the Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days. THE RULING closely matches the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court decision, which led to its Legislature's approval in 2000 of civil unions that give couples many of the same benefits of marriage. The Massachusetts high court ruled that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry." The decision is the latest in a series of victories for gay rights advocates, but fell short of what the seven couples who sued the state had hoped to receive: the right to marry their longtime companion. The Massachusetts question will now return to the Legislature, which already is considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal. A similar initiative, launched by citizens, was defeated by the Legislature last year on a procedural vote. BACKGROUND TO LAWSUIT The lawsuit was filed by seven gay couples who sued the state Department of Public Health in 2001 after their requests for marriage licenses were denied. A Superior Court judge dismissed their suit in May 2002, ruling that state law does not convey the right of marriage to gay couples, and the couples appealed. The high court heard arguments in March, and hundreds of organizations and individuals across the country filed briefs on both sides of the argument. The court had three options: instructing the state to give marriage licenses to the seven couples; upholding the state's authority to deny same-sex couples the right to wed; or referring the matter to the Legislature. The Legislature already considering various competing proposals to outlaw or to legalize gay marriages or civil unions. Gov. Mitt Romney has repeatedly said that marriage should be preserved as a union between a man and a woman, but has declined to comment on what he would do if gay marriages are legalized. On the campaign trail last fall, Romney said he would veto gay-marriage legislation. He supports giving domestic benefits such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights to gay couples. OTHER STATES Gay and lesbian advocates had been cheered by a series of advances this year, including a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down anti-sodomy laws, the ordination of an openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, and a Canadian appeals court ruling that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. Belgium and the Netherlands also have legalized gay marriage. In addition to Vermont, courts in Hawaii and Alaska have previously ruled that the states did not have a right to deny marriage to gay couples. In those two states, the decisions were followed by the adoption of constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. No American court has ordered the issuance of a marriage license -- a privilege reserved for heterosexual couples. The U.S. House is currently considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage. President Bush, although he believes marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman, recently said that a constitutional amendment is not yet necessary. Homos Gary Chalmers, left, and Rich Linnell, right, both of Northbridge, Mass., are among the plaintiffs in the gay marriage case.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Now you reveal your true colors!

You are a BARTCOP plant and hate people who have faith in GOD!

[af_vet_rr]

They may have government approval of queer sex, but they ain't married.

Exactly. They can have a legal contract/license, (bunch of government paperwork), but they definitely are not married.

[cajungirl]

Who is Bart Cop? And I have no bias against people who believe in God,,I do have bias against those who think they have all the answers, those who use God's word to hurt others and those who think the government ought to be a theocracy. Yep I have that bias. And you still haven't told me who a bart cop is.

[apackof2]

Since your tag line describes you as a godless atheist how can you possibly have any spiritual understanding of the Scriptures, the very thing you say you don't believe in?

The scripture you refer to is in the New Testament which is the new convevant that ALL believers are under.
Therefore "one wife" is new covenant commanment