[William McKinley]

Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

link.

[Petronski]

But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

This sentence of the ruling was decided and written long before the case was ever heard.

[TalBlack]

Isn't it good to be a judge in America? You can decide for a Nation ALL right and wromg. All morality. You are, pretty much, answerable to no one. You can chuck out social belief going back MILLENIA! You can redefine a sacred institution out of existence. Yeah, its good to be a judge; up until, I suppose, the noose is going around your neck, and you are reconsidering your part in the utter destruction of The Rule of Law.

[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.

[HamiltonJay]

It appears the "BIG DIG" in massachuchusetts, has nothing to do with that highway project.

Two people desire to make commitments to one another, that's their business.... asking society to convey special rights to them, when there is no interest in the state at all to that relationship is unfathonable.

THe only reason the state has any interest in heterosexual marriage is because offspring can be produced through normal and natural activity.. this is not the case with homosexual relationships so there is absolutely no reason for the state to sanction or care about these individual relationships.

[Paulus Invictus]

This is the leftist state whose benighted citizens consistently ignore reality and re-elect the likes of an unpunished criminal to the US Senate---The Chappaquidic Kid himself, Teddy Kennedy.

[xzins]

I am thoroughly disgusted.

If they can't see the uniqueness of a male/female marriage and what its potentialities are, then I'm ready......

When in the course of human events.....

[richtig_faust]

It doesn't make sense then to outlaw a marriage between a man and a dog or a man and a sheep.

[gridlock]

The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

Sorry, but the Massachusetts Supreme Court is exactly right on this one. There is no constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same sex couples.

That's the problem with governmental recognition of civil marriage.

Get government out of the marriage business, before it is too late! This cornerstone of society is strong enough to survive without governmental protection.

Government can only destroy marriage. Protection of marriage from government is the only way to save it.

[freetradenotfree]

First woman approved as head of Massachusetts high court

BOSTON (AP) — Justice Margaret Marshall was elevated to chief justice of Massachusetts' highest court Wednesday, becoming the first woman to head the nation's oldest appellate court.

Ms. Marshall, a former chief counsel at Harvard University, overcame charges of anti-Catholic bias to win a 6-3 confirmation vote by the Governor's Council, which votes on nominations by the governor.

"1 follow in the footsteps of giants," Ms. Marshall said. "1 do so with humility, and with a deep commitment to the rule of law."

Ms. Marshall, 55, a native of South Africa,

was appointed an associate justice of the Supreme Judicial Court in 1996. She was at Harvard at the time and had previously been in private practice.

Her nomination to head the 307-year-old court was marred when Cardinal Bernard Law raised concerns that she harbored anti-Catholic bias.

Law, who heads the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, wrote last month to Gov. Paul Cellucci and said Ms. Marshall was "open to serious charges of anti-Catholicism."

He cited an incident in which Ms. Marshall, while at Harvard, chastised a professor who had used university stationery for a personal note with an anti-abortion message.

Catholic groups also feared she could not be impartial on abortion cases because she once served on an abortion clinic's board of trustees. Ms. Marshall denied her personal views would affect her role as jurist.

Law later retracted his complaint after speaking with Ms. Marshall, who is Protestant. "She gave me her assurance that she was not anti-Catholic," he said, "and I have absolutely no reason to not accept her word on that."

Is Justice Margaret Marshall a U.S Citizens?

[The Red Zone]

O-TAY! NEXT: END BIGOTRRY AGAINST BIGAMISTS!