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

FoxNews | 11-18-03 | FoxNews

[Rutles4Ever]

Yet another disgrace from the cradle of America... coming soon to a state near you.

I must assume this throws the doors open to nationwide lawsuits.

[rintense]

I'm just wondering where this ends. I mean, what if two women and one man wanted to 'get married'. Two men and a woman... four women and two guys... it just seems like a slippery slope disguised under the cry of 'it's our right!'. *SIGH*

[gorgiboy]

Yes, but no God allowed anywhere....... That is why all of these situations are happening! We've taken God out of everything! (Gorgiboy's Wife)

[Law]

It was just a matter of time after Lawrence v. Texas.

But I think this court's ruling will backfire on the left, as the proposed heterosexual marriage only amendment to the Constitution becomes the winning conservative issue of the 2004 campaign.

[luv2ndamend]

[kjam22]

The problem is that our constitution clearly makes provisions for controlling the judiciary. But our ELECTED leaders won't sholder this responsibility.

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

LOL they probably throw AZT tablets.

But seriously, this is not a "landmark" decision as so many news reporters are saying. The "full faith and credit" that States must give to each other's laws is not tested by this any more than the states who legalized gay marriage through appropriate methods - legislative action. Don't Hawaii and Vermont have gay marriage?

[netmilsmom]

LOL!
How about three women or four men? Two men and a woman?
How about two women and a dog? How about three men and a sheep? It could be endless!

On a series note...I would like to see the stats on drug use in gays. I had Lesbian friends who smoked pot as much as they breathed. My sister has become a big pothead since coming out as well.

[hardhead]

Rubbers; condoms; prophylactics?

[Petronski]

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

Probably some of that Monsanto GE corn that yields infertile seed crops.

[Always Right]

But I think this court's ruling will backfire on the left, as the proposed heterosexual marriage only amendment to the Constitution becomes the winning conservative issue of the 2004 campaign.

Yep, and I think there will be a US Constitutional Amendment passed on this very subject. It is time to get the ball rolling.

[stevio]

Why just couples?

Exactly. Someone should immediately push the "courts" for two or three people, and why not animals? Surely there's nothing in the constitution that you can't marry your pet.

[armymarinemom]

Sigh. I hope we don't start getting snowed under with Honeymoons up here in Maine.

[Geronimo]

Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional
By Associated Press, 11/18/2003

BOSTON -- 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 court ruled 4-3, ordering the Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days.

The Supreme Judicial Court's ruling closely matches the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court decision, which led there to the Legislature's approval in 2000 of civil unions that give couples many of the same benefits of marriage.

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.

Developing

[vollmond]

Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it. Next up - suits for palimony, alienation of affection, "marriage penalty" taxes, etc. Is Mass. a community property state?

[rintense]

I must assume this throws the doors open to nationwide lawsuits.

It will, but it will ultimately come down to either Congress or the SCOTUS. The laws can't be different from state-to-state (at least that's what the gay lobby will say). This is going to be another Roe v. Wade decision. In this case, however, I think the American people should be asked to decide- not the SCOTUS. It needs to be the will of the people if gay marriage should be legal or not- not the decision of the courts.

[PISANO]

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

Not in the eyes of GOD. However it is just a matter of time now before EVERY STATE in the UNION will HAVE to recognize GAY marriage. The only thing that can stop it is a Constitutional Amendment.

[Catspaw]

Rosie's moving to P-town.

[AppyPappy]

Very tolerant. You get a gold star.

[Timeout]

What an interesting dilemma for the Dem Dwarfs on the campaign trail.