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.

[cajungirl]

Hey, I was being generous giving him the 5 % but he wanted more, just like the gay lobby. Not content for the current live and let live world. No one I know is rude, hateful, etc to gay people. We all have gay people in our worlds and live peacefully with them. What is happeniing is the radical elements of the gay lobby have taken over the politics and may have just shot themselves in the foot. I hope so.

[longtermmemmory]

This is the senate and house committees that have the Federal Marriage Amendment.
This is at www.house.gov and www.senate.gov
These members count the letters of support.

There are now enough states to pass this due to the fact
they individually have DOMA's.
The FMA will take the Federal Gov. out of the marriage
definition game and put it to state legislatures.
This includes Federally making marriage one man one woman for immigration matters.

These members count the letters of support.
Homosexual special interest groups are trying to organize letter campaigns.
This includes internet and (oddly enough) nightclubs.

This is very doable.

 

US House of Representatives

Committee on the Judiciary

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman

---

Chairman's Welcome

Weekly Schedule

Press Room

Committee Members

Hearings & Markups

Committee Documents

Documents of Interest

Judiciary Democrats

Special Needs

Congressional Links

About the Committee

Student Research

Privacy Policy

Intern Program

Contact the Chairman

Homepage

---

Subcommittee Members

Subcommittee on the Constitution Mr. Steve Chabot, Chairman
362 Ford HOB, Tel: 202-226-7680
Mr. King	Mr. Jerrold Nadler
Mr. Jenkins	Mr. John Conyers
Mr. Bachus	Mr. Robert Scott
Mr. Hostettler	Mr. Melvin Watt
Ms. Hart	Mr. Adam Schiff
Mr. Feeney
Mr. Forbes

 

BELOW IS THE SENATE COMMITTEE WITH THE COMPANION BILL

HOME >

MEMBERS

Orrin G. Hatch CHAIRMAN, UTAH	Patrick J. Leahy RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, VERMONT
Charles E. Grassley IOWA	Edward M. Kennedy MASSACHUSETTS
Arlen Specter PENNSYLVANIA	Joseph R. Biden, Jr. DELAWARE
Jon Kyl ARIZONA	Herbert Kohl WISCONSIN
Mike DeWine OHIO	Dianne Feinstein CALIFORNIA
Jeff Sessions ALABAMA	Russell D. Feingold WISCONSIN
Lindsey Graham SOUTH CAROLINA	Charles E. Schumer NEW YORK
Larry Craig IDAHO	Richard J. Durbin ILLINOIS
Saxby Chambliss GEORGIA	John Edwards NORTH CAROLINA
John Cornyn TEXAS

 BELOW IS A FORM LETTER TO SEND TO THE SENATORS AND HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES

RE: Support in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26

Dear [ Decision Maker ]

I support the Federal marriage amendment. As you constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote. As you constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote.

This amendment will remove the courts from redefining the marriage based on social activist judges. This will also protect our state from any actions taken or will be taken in any other state. Private sexual behavior should not be the standard which defines marriage. Marriage is a public institution which is how we raise and support societies children. This institution needs protecting by putting into the Constitution what we have today.

This is not the first time the constitution has been used for social issues. All of the Constitution is based on various social issues. This only codifies what exists now.

This amendment will remove the Federal Government from this issue and return this topic to the individual state legislatures.

Any same sex couple has the legal right to make a private cohabitation agreement, they have the right make powers of attorney and have the right to make health care surrogate directives. These form documents are readily available for nominal cost or free on the internet. Non of these agreements require any special lawyer help. Marriage under the law is one man and one woman. There is no sexual behavior test. Homosexual rantings to the contrary, their opposition is only attempting to impose public acceptance on what should remain a private consensual behavior.

Please support the support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26, amend the Constitution and protect marriage.

Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]

[jwalsh07]

CENTER>

---

Surv.Report Vol.14  |   Home   |   Index   |   Search   |   Site Map   |   Subscribe

---

Table 3. Estimated numbers of diagnoses of AIDS, by year of diagnosis and selected characteristics of persons, 1998–2002— United States

	Year of diagnosis					Cumulative through 2002a
	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002
Age at diagnosis (yrs)
<13	238	183	118	110	92	9,300
13--14	54	58	57	75	76	839
15--24	1,591	1,527	1,625	1,638	1,833	35,460
25--34	12,671	11,342	10,373	10,063	9,688	301,278
35--44	17,670	17,181	17,280	17,057	17,398	347,860
45--54	8,016	8,065	8,581	9,015	9,488	138,386
55--64	2,235	2,218	2,417	2,481	2,773	40,584
&#8805; 65	751	739	787	788	789	12,868
Race/ethnicity
White, not Hispanic	13,553	12,626	12,088	11,671	11,929	364,458
Black, not Hispanic	20,672	19,953	20,353	20,594	21,169	347,491
Hispanic	8,460	8,140	8,173	8,279	8,242	163,940
Asian/Pacific Islander	346	380	388	441	478	6,924
American Indian/Alaska Native	157	164	185	188	206	2,875
Exposure category
Male adult or adolescent
Male-to-male sexual contact	17,357	16,378	16,076	16,296	16,944	420,790
Injection drug use	8,462	7,965	7,689	7,115	6,945	172,351
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use	2,466	2,275	2,006	2,010	1,898	59,719
Heterosexual contact	4,033	4,136	4,258	4,554	4,937	50,793
Otherb	384	365	367	361	365	14,350
Subtotal	32,703	31,119	30,396	30,335	31,089	718,002
Female adult or adolescent
Injection drug use	3,740	3,516	3,533	3,387	3,180	67,917
Heterosexual contact	6,300	6,260	6,911	7,103	7,476	84,835
Otherb	243	236	281	292	299	6,519
Subtotal	10,283	10,012	10,725	10,783	10,955	159,271
Child(<13 yrs)
Perinatal	236	181	115	106	90	8,629
Otherc	1	2	3	4	2	671
Subtotal	238	183	118	110	92	9,300
Region of residence
Northeast	11,879	11,856	12,400	11,460	10,909	273,248
Midwest	4,061	4,065	4,234	4,305	4,707	87,931
South	18,429	17,184	16,714	17,696	18,546	317,244
West	7,375	6,903	6,646	6,427	6,719	179,212
U.S. dependencies, possessions, and associated nations	1,482	1,305	1,245	1,339	1,256	28,941
Totald	43,225	41,314	41,239	41,227	42,136	886,575

Note. These numbers do not represent actual cases in persons with a diagnosis of AIDS. Rather, these numbers are point estimates of cases diagnosed that have been adjusted for reporting delays and for redistribution of cases in persons initially reported without an identified risk. The estimates have not been adjusted for incomplete reporting.

^a Includes persons with a diagnosis of AIDS, from the beginning of the epidemic through 2002.
^b Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal, and risk not reported or not identified.
^c Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, and risk not reported or not identified.
^d Includes persons of unknown or multiple race and of unknown sex. Cumulative total includes 887 persons of unknown or multiple race and 2 persons of unknown sex. Because column totals were calculated independently of the values for the subpopulations, the values in each column may not sum to the column total.

---

Surv.Report.Vol.14   |   Home   |   Index   |   Search   |   Site Map   |   Subscribe

---

Last updated on: October 24, 2003
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention
Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention
Contact Us

[Cicero]

As you say. Marriage is a matter of natural law. Darwin and the Bible are in thorough agreement on this one point, if not on others.

Survival of the species requires that male should mate with female and produce children. Human mating requires marriage, a long-term commitment, because human children require a long time to educate and bring up.

Turning back to religion, God's first command both to animals and to man was to increase and multiply. Even trees and vegetables are created with this built in imperative, each bearing its own seed or fruit carrying seed.

Homosexuality is a religious perversion, a psychological disorder, and an evolutionary dead end.

[Maceman]

If he has no role then WTF did he bring the issue up in his SOTU address?

Beats me. Probably as a bone to the conservative base, since he has screwed them so badly lately with his really big government agenda. Personally, I would rather see him focus on issues on which he can play a productive constitutional role -- such as cutting spending and rolling back the size and scope of the federal government.

[cajungirl]

Giggling,,I was trying to not call him scum. The point here is that tolerance for gays has been rising dramaticallly if you ask me. Now this. But prior to this was the move on schools. No one wants to be getting into adults bedrooms but we are talking about school and church. And the lying of the left in furthering the gay agenda. It really is breathtaking at times. I for one am sickened by the spending of money on a disease that is entirely preventable while spending for other more important health problems gets shortchanged. But while thinking all this, I have a marvelous gay hairdresser and decorator and wouldn't give them up for anything.

[muawiyah]

Presumably the President could move in troops to make sure Massachusetts is guaranteed a Republican Form of Government, but isn't it the job of the State legislature to remove judges when they do this sort of thing and get new judges who won't!

[cajungirl]

thanks,,wonder why so many southerners have aids.

[End Times Sentinel]

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

 

She said there's 95 straight people for each homosexual.  And what percentage of the population do you think is gay?

 

AIDS has been around for 20 years and in the U.S. there is minimal heterosexual transmission.  If you want to cite African numbers which are far different from U.S. numbers due to their bizarre sexual proclivities, you should admit that this is a red herring you're introducing.

Owl_Eagle

”Guns Before Butter.”

[Smogger]

I am very disappointed that Pres. Bush has not been doing more to bring this issue to the forefront, as liberal judges try to impose gay marriage on the country.

Saving it for the campaign trail. After all this is Kerry's home state. This issue is a loser for Dems.

[doug from upland]

The ball is in your court Mr. President.
================================================

One of the words in your above comment needs to be plural.

[muawiyah]

The full faith and credit clause is interpreted differently in different states, particularly when it comes to property settlements, child custody, common law marriage, etc.

The notion that it is an absolutist clause is coming out of the ether that surrounds the penumbra of emanations ~ it's as flexibile as any clause in the Constitution.

[Mo1]

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

That's what I thought

[Hemingway's Ghost]

The point here is that tolerance for gays has been rising dramaticallly if you ask me.

I have no problem with gays, per se, but the things about this issue that bothers me immensely is the SJC's usurpation of the power to legislate, AND this notion that because homosexuals can't "marry" each other legally, they're somehow being discriminated against---and that civil unions isn't a "workable" solution to all this frigging rubbish. Honestly, when all's said and done, who are the freaks that push for this kind of crap? Who stays up all night and dwells over this stuff---that gays can't marry? Isn't one of the "best" things about being gay that nobody expects you to get married---you can go out and tag all you want to and never grow up or old?

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Not in Massachusetts anyway.....

[cajungirl]

Reminds me of that school funding case. Anyone remember when some state court in the northeast ordered the legislature or a city to raise taxes for schools? Some years ago. I don't know what happened with that but it was a big flap at the time.

[presidio9]

The 10% figure was a calculated fabrication on the part of Alfred Kinsey. It was exposed as such over 10 years ago, but not before my generation, which is, I suspect, yours was repeatedly brainwashed with this misinformation from grammar school through college.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

Okay, if it is permissable for two consenting adults... why not 10? or 20?

This IS the slippery slope argument writ large. If not here, where? Where should the line on permissable behaviour be drawn?

BTW, sex and marriage are not mutually exclusive in today's culture. Sex outside of marriage is considered acceptable. Therefore, if homosexuals wish to engage in such practices in the privacy of their own homes, fine. Nothing we can do to stop them. But to claim marriage rights just because they want to boff each other? Ludicrous!