Mass. High Court Rules for Gay Marriage

Associated Press Writer ^ | Wed, Feb 04, 2004 | JENNIFER PETER

[presidio9]

BOSTON - The Massachusetts high court ruled Tuesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples — rather than civil unions — would meet the edict of its November decision, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages would take place in the state beginning in mid-May.

AP Photo Slideshow: Same-Sex Marriage Issues

The court issued the opinion in response to a request from the state Senate about whether Vermont-style civil unions, which conveyed the benefits — but not the title of marriage — would meet constitutional muster.

The much-anticipated opinion sets the stage for next Wednesday's Constitutional Convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Without the opinion, Senate President Robert Travaglini had said the vote would be delayed.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change state laws to make it happen.

But almost immediately, the vague wording of the ruling left lawmakers — and advocates on both side of the issue — uncertain if Vermont-style civil unions would satisfy the court's decision.

The state Senate asked for more guidance from the court and sought the advisory opinion, which was made public Wednesday morning when it was read into the Senate record.

[I_love_weather]

Quote "Moving forward into what? More AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases"

I believe the current statistics show that the greatest number of new cases of these diseases are among straight people.

Sorry...nice try though

[cajungirl]

He made a ppoint of putting it out there at SOTU. Now the chips are going to start falling. And I do think that whatever can be done vis a vis the legislative process, he is working on it. I don't know what else the "base" expects. Do they want him out there screaming like Howard Dean? I think not. He has stated his position and from what I know about GWB, he is reliable. The base however is constantly acting unreliable. Or those who see themselves as the "base".

[COEXERJ145]

Simple majority vote. Article III gives Congress the authority to setup all federal courts except for the Supreme Court which is the only constitutionally mandated court. Now whether or not the CongressCritters will do this and/or will the Rats filibuster in the Senate is another question.

[I_love_weather]

Quote "Why don't we eliminate all laws then?"

Laws are meant to protect people. Of course we need laws.

If two consenting adults want to do something in their bedroom...and they are not hurting anyone...I don't think we need a law saying that should or should not do - whatever it is they are doing.

Laws are mean for those who commit crimes. Not meant for people have sex...

[I_love_weather]

Quote "Why don't we eliminate all laws then?"

Laws are meant to protect people. Of course we need laws.

If two consenting adults want to do something in their bedroom...and they are not hurting anyone...I don't think we need a law saying that should or should not do - whatever it is they are doing.

Laws are mean for those who commit crimes. Not meant for people have sex...

[Kieri]

The instant Massachusetts has same-sex marriage, a suit will be brought in federal court. Then the USSC will be able to rule. The only thing stopping it would be a constitutional amendment.

Its important to re-elect President Bush for this reason.

Can you IMAGINE the kind of judges Kerry would appoint to the USSC?

Now I'm gonna have nightmares.

[Dan from Michigan]

In other news, Barney Frank proclaimed there will be a party at the Blue Oyster tonight, complete with games of buttdarts.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

They will react to it by continuing to overwhelmingly vote in liberal politicians who espouse this nonsense and these politicians will continue to appoint judges who subscribe to secular humanist liberalism.

In other words, the people of Massachusetts will be outraged not at all. This is simply a reflection of the corrupt, secular humanist values of the people.

Nothing personal, but screw you. Not all of us here in the Commonwealth are faggoty metrosexual sheep. Quit painting with such a lame-assed broad brush.

[Diddle E. Squat]

No, it is not a victory for human rights, it is simply another judicial power grab to impose the will of a few unelected judges on the people via a legal loophole.

Read closely, they had the opportunity to chose a potentially equal designation of 'civil unions', that with some legislative moves would have provided basically the same economic benefits, while still recognizing that a union of a man-man or woman-woman is clearly different than man-woman, with different policy impacts. But no, even that wasn't good enough, they had to insist that it be given the same term, 'marriage'.

Fine, the gay rights lobby got greedy and overreached. They could have gotten 99% of what they wanted under a different name, but they wanted to smear it in everyone's face, acting like a spoiled little child who runs around the dinner table putting his fingers in everyone's plate. Well now they will find out the bitter negatives of overreaching out of greed and spite, and get far less than what they could have. 2/3rds of Americans oppose gay marriage, and the number opposed to forced gay marriage laws will only grow when the issue of having one state define their state's laws becomes a co-equal issue. The judicial activists have also miscalculated on what they can get away with.

In the culture war, the gay lobby and judicial activists have just decided to lead the French army into Russia, and winter is approaching...

[kennedy]

Facially unconstitutional.

I'm not so sure. The Supreme Court has granted the feds the power to regulate just about every other type of contract on interstate commerce grounds, why not the marriage contract? Also, the feds have a legitimate reason for setting a uniform definition of marriage, since the Internal Revenue Code, the welfare laws and other federal statutes are filled with provisions that grant or take away rights based on marital status.

[presidio9]

Anybody who says that they will not vote for President Bush's reelection needs to think long and hard about what our country will look like if THIS happens. Under the Senators from Mass and NY, not only will gay marriage be legalized, but gay couples will be given privelidged status.

[cajungirl]

Foolish statement re stats on new aids cases. The number of aids cases in straights versus gays is meaningless given that there are 95 straight people per gay so if 1% of straights gets aids the number is huge even compared to 50% of gays. You are using stats to perpetuate a lie,,that straight people are equally at risk of aids. That is a clear political try to make Aids "our disease" rather than what it is,,a plague among gays and IV drug abusers with a few straight people caught in the crossfire from other reasons. Your reasoning won't work here.

[presidio9]

ping

[Doug Loss]

Why is the Massachusetts General Assembly even considering this? I haven't read the Mass. Constitution, but I have an awfully hard time believing that it gives the Judicial Court the power to order legislation to be passed. The GA should just say, "Thanks for your opinion," and go its merry way.

If the Constitution "does" give the court this power, the Feds need to step in and force a change to guarantee to the citizens of the Commonwealth a republican form of government.

[cajungirl]

post 109,,you are so right.

[tomahawk]

We absolutely have to reelect Pres. Bush (and with hopefully a more GOP Senate) to get real judges on the federal bench.

It would mobilize the base for him more if he makes more statements about this issue.

[Jim Noble]

They could have gotten 99% of what they wanted under a different name

But they don't want, or even care about the 99%.

[I_love_weather]

Quote "Foolish statement re stats on new aids cases. The number of aids cases in straights versus gays is meaningless given that there are 95 straight people per gay so if 1% of straights gets aids the number is huge even compared to 50% of gays. You are using stats to perpetuate a lie,,that straight people are equally at risk of aids. That is a clear political try to make Aids "our disease" rather than what it is,,a plague among gays and IV drug abusers with a few straight people caught in the crossfire from other reasons. Your reasoning won't work here."

If you think there are only 5% of the population that would be considered gay...then you are just not living in reality :)

I will let you believe that though...if it helps brighten your day :)

Heh...

The comment does stand...more straight people are getting and spreading these diseases than gay people.

You can believe what you like...

[cajungirl]

LOok, if the "base" needs mobilizing now after watching the last few weeks of dems spouting nonsense, if the base still needs more from GWB, then you all are congenital doubting Thomasis. For crying out loud, when are you self styled self important base people going to start acting like adults and not kids running around threatening to take your ball home when you don't call each and every shot.