Massachusetts Gay marriage decision met with optism, dismay

AP Wire (breaking on direct feed) | November 18, 2003 | MARTIN FINUCANE

[NYer]

BOSTON (AP) _ For some, it was an occasion to pop champagne corks and start planning spring weddings. For others, it was cause for dismay over what they saw as the further erosion of traditional family values.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution drew both praise and criticism Tuesday from around Massachusetts and the nation. And both supporters and opponents of gay marriage warned that the battle may not be over.

The high court's 4-3 ruling opened the door for gay marriages in the state. But for some supporters, there was lingering concern that the Legislature would somehow derail that victory. And the idea of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage being placed on the ballot in 2006 had powerful supporters.

``I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,'' Republican Gov. Mitt Romney said. ``Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman ... and our constitution and laws should reflect that.''

House Speaker Thomas Finneran, D-Boston, has also endorsed such an amendment. Senate President Robert Travaglini, D-Boston, wouldn't say Tuesday what his position would be on a possible referendum vote in 2006 _ the earliest such a change could be enacted. Meanwhile, at a Boston news conference, same-sex couples who had sued the state seeking access to marriage licenses were jubilant, hugging and smiling. Some said news of the decision prompted on-the-spot proposals to longtime partners. ``It's a historic day because finally all families in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will have the opportunity to be equal families under the law,'' said Mary Bonauto, the lead attorney in the case.

At a bookstore in Northampton, a western Massachusetts city with a sizable gay community, people broke out the champagne after the court's decision was released. One of them, Lily Perkins, said gay couples were fighting for something heterosexual couples take for granted. ``We are a family,'' she said. ``This is a positive move to equality.'' Perkins and her partner, Tracy Ross, have been together for six years, own a home in Northampton and have adopted a 5-year-old son. ``We aren't asking for special rights,'' Ross said. ``We areasking for parity.'' Supporters of gay marriage were also expected to rally Tuesday evening in Northampton and Boston.

Archbishop Sean O'Malley issued a statement saying the court's decision flew in the face of history and common sense. ``It is alarming that the Supreme Judicial Court in this ruling has cast aside ... the very definition of marriage held by peoples for thousands of years,'' O'Malley said in a statement. ``My hope is that legislators will have the courage and common sense to redress the situation for the good of society.''

Ray Flynn, the former Boston mayor and U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, criticized the ruling, and said he felt the debate would now shift to the presidential campaign. ``This has been a ticking time bomb in America for the last several months that has exploded in Massachusetts,'' he said. ``Not only is this decision a Massachusetts decision, but this will affect the New Hampshire primary and the election itself.''

The state's congressional delegation had a mixed reaction to the SJC ruling. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, who is openly gay, said the decision ``will enhance the lives of probably thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Massachusetts citizens, and will have no negative effects on anyone else.'' Rep. Marty Meehan agreed. ``There will be some from the right who will try to paint a picture that this will somehow be an infringement on heterosexual couples, I don't view it that way,'' said Meehan, also a Democrat.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said the decision was a ``welcome new milestone on the road to full civil rights for all our citizens. ``It's wrong for any state to discriminate against gays and lesbians by denying them the many benefits and protections that the laws of the state provide for married couples,'' Kennedy said.

As word of the decision spread across the nation Tuesday, national advocacy groups from both ends of the political spectrum who have been eyeing the Massachusetts decision as a key event in the national debate over gay marriage, chimed in. The Human Rights Campaign, a national lesbian and gay political organization, said, ``In the best tradition of our nation, that court ruled that the hard-working tax-paying gay and lesbian citizens deserve the same rights and protections under law as other citizens of the state. ... This is good for gay couples and it's good for America.''

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, a conservative public policy group, said the decision was ``deeply disturbing.'' ``But marriage between a man and a woman predates the state of Massachusetts and I believe it will survive these four judges' foolishness,'' he said. Bauer agreed with Flynn that the decision would have repercussions nationwide and could become ``a defining cultural issue'' in the presidential campaign.

Perry Norton, father of one of the plaintiffs in the case, Heidi Norton, said the decision was ``one step forward.'' ``We're very pleased. ... I'm glad for the litigants and for the hundreds and thousands of same-sex couples in Massachusetts,'' he said. ``Yet I see a steady uphill struggle to achieve full rights in this state and in the entire country.''

[NYer]

``I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,'' Republican Gov. Mitt Romney said.

[NYer]

``It is alarming that the Supreme Judicial Court in this ruling has cast aside ... the very definition of marriage held by peoples for thousands of years,'' O'Malley said in a statement. ``My hope is that legislators will have the courage and common sense to redress the situation for the good of society.''

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[speedy]

Maybe Barney Frank should marry Ted Kennedy. Actually, in the long run, idiotic decisions like this should play into our hands politically, the same way the radicals of the 60s helped create GOP converts. If it gets to be an election issue, it's all to the good. Unfortunately, in the short term, these sad sick people get to pretend they are married.

[Maeve]

Bump, ping

[tessalu]

The sad truth is that the people of the United States are being led down the path to Sodom, and I do not want to go there. I hate it as much as God hates it, and I think that I would understand if God chose to get rid of me along with the rest of the perverts. God forgive us! As it was in the days of Noah, when God chose to destroy all but 8 people by a flood.

[longtermmemmory]

This is what I see in Mass. The Mass SC saw that a ruling which simply allowed homosexual marriage would immediatly been overruled by the legislature and they would have been reviled. This solution puts all the pressure on the legislature. The Mass SC did not say yea or nay, just the legislature has to make a decision.

The deadline however seems a suckers bet. Can the mass legislature move the process up faster?

[armadale]

Which is a bigger threat to marriage: gay marriage or serial marriage (Liza & David, about 3/4ths of our elected representatives, etc.)?

I argue the latter.

[SuziQ]

But for some supporters, there was lingering concern that the Legislature would somehow derail that victory.

Oh yeah, God Forbid that the CITIZENS of the Commonwealth, through their legislators, should have any say in the way decisions are made on their behalf!

[Reactionary]

I think he's talking about marriage as it's been practiced by nearly every civilization throughout human history.

Do try to follow along...

[jimt]

Can you cite any historical recognition of "gay marriage"?

I can't think of any, myself.

[SuziQ]

There is no concern that homosexuals have in the way of property rights, visitation in hospitals, health care, decisions for each other, etc, that cannot be addressed by simple existing legal documents.

There is absolutely NO reason to up-end civilization to accomodate the particular sexual desires of a tiny minority of people in this country.

[longtermmemmory]

(s) therefore we should support polygamy. This would allow the woman and the man to continue the ecconomic and parental relationships under the same roof and still allow the man to have an additional sex partner. Thus a solution is found. After all, its only about a private contractual agreement between parties. Marriage has nothing to do with the public. (/s)

[longtermmemmory]

BTW: The Mass ruling does NOT allow a virginia civil union compromise. It is all or nothing according to the ruling.

[longtermmemmory]

oops virginia should be vermont. Dean country.

[NYer]

God Forbid that the CITIZENS of the Commonwealth, through their legislators, should have any say in the way decisions are made on their behalf!

Have you noticed that the Gay Advocacy Groups have intentionally bypassed state legislators and gone directly to the courts. Most of these judges are appointed - not elected!

HOMOSEXUAL MANIFESTO

[Semper Paratus]

The Mass SC did not say yea or nay, just the legislature has to make a decision.

Wish that was so but the ruling ordered the legislature to change the current statue to strike out 'between man and a woman' saying the only constitutional phrase is between 2 people.

Need a constitutional amedndment and that won't get to the voter for 3 years.

Can't wait to see the Boston Globe marriages page in 6 months.

[Ohioan]

``It's a historic day because finally all families in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will have the opportunity to be equal families under the law,'' said Mary Bonauto, the lead attorney in the case.

One can draw one of several conclusions from this remark. But only two of those conclusions have any reasonable degree of probability:

1. That Miss Bonauto is a sociopath, mocking the normal use of English, to rub salt in the wounds of decent, family oriented Massachusians. (I have never been quite sure how to spell the word.)

2. Miss Bonauto is suffering from a serious mental derangement, and is unable to comprehend to what the English word "family" refers.

The sad truth is that some of us can still remember a time, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was a respected body. They may have been more Liberal than some other Courts, but they were still respected. It is difficult to believe that they still will be. This is right out of Gulliver's Travels--and Dean Swift has been dead for centuries.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[NYer]

By 3,000 years of recorded history , I am referring to the natural truths about marriage! Since homosexuals cannot "naturally" reproduce, marriage for them is nothing more than a legal contract. As such, there is NO need to alter the definition of marriage to accomodate their wants. A lawyer can arrange that through a living will.

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

[longtermmemmory]

Do they HAVE to change that law or do they have to "address the issue"? Can the mass constitution be amended before then?

The 180 days seems arbitrary, I wonder if the state can appeal on that issue alone since the Constitution is going to be ammended in 2006. (seperation of powers, the courts can't order the legislature to write laws, only rule on the ones there. Well that is the theory)