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.

[ladtx]

...only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples — rather than civil unions ...

The slope just became a little more slippery.

[Pyro7480]

Down with the Court! Their arrogance is beyond contempt.. Stop the social engineering!

[KantianBurke]

The ball is in your court Mr. President.

[hattend]

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.

Of the judges, by the judges, for the judges.

I will never go over Massachusetts airspace, let alone visit there.

[biblewonk]

The ball is in your court Mr. President.

Where is the abortion ball?

[COEXERJ145]

The ball is in your court Mr. President.

And just what is he suppose to do? Right now this is still a state issue and not a federal one.

[VRW Conspirator]

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.

Did I miss something here. Should it be that the state Senate advises the courts and not the other way around?

[Just mythoughts]

Old Teddy and his side-kick JFKerry must be ever so pleased. MASS is now land of Sodom!

[I_love_weather]

Quote "I will never go over Massachusetts airspace, let alone visit there"

I am sure they really don't care whether you visit there or not.

Sounds like the nation is moving forward. A victory for human rights...

[Phantom Lord]

Right now this is still a state issue and not a federal one.

The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution would say otherwise.

[Vision]

One of the best parts of the SOTU speech was Bush targeting these activist judges.

[kdmhcdcfld]

I think I'm going to vomit...

[Lunatic Fringe]

This makes the Full Faith and Credit clause that much more interesting... Gay marriage has just been made legal in all 50 states.

[tomahawk]

If Pres. Bush doesn't support stopping this slide into Sodomite Hell via a Constitutional amendment, he doesn't deserve to be President, and say hello to Pres. Kerry.

[KantianBurke]

"A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH'S ADDRESS BEFORE A JOINT SESSION OF THE CONGRESS ON THE STATE OF THE UNION

January 20, 2004

http://www.c-span.org/executive/transcript.asp?cat=current_event&code=bush_admin&year=2004

[hattend]

Sounds like the nation is moving forward

To what end?

Nice troll.
Wrong lure.

[tomahawk]

That's what Pres. Bush said. Now, will he back up his words?

[Dane]

The ball is in your court Mr. President.

Actually it is in the Mass. legislatures court. This is a state issue for now. But what the hey you gotta be like Joe and bring in your animus towards the President into the fray somehow.

[COEXERJ145]

Yes, and once it becomes a federal case, then the President can do something. Right now it is still a state issue. It is quite possible that the federal courts might not agree to hear any full faith & credit cases until the issue is resolved by the voters. If they pass a Constitutional amendment, then the state Supreme Court ruling is void. If they reject it, then there will be a FFC issue.