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.

[longtermmemmory]

You are wrong, FFC is about being forced to recognize what is done in other states.

FL has a three day waiting or education requirement for marriage licenses issued in FL. Due to FFC FL recognizes marriages which do not comply with that.

FL has no common law marriage, however if the common law marriage is officially recognized in another state FL will treat it as married.

A constituional amendment is the ONLY way this will be stopped. period. no law is strong enough.

Remember starting in may homosexuals can use marriage for immigration purposes. Homosexuals will be able to claim the automatic issue of fiance visas. FFC.

[BlackElk]

Jim, If you decide to leave the People's Demonratic Lavender Republic of Taxachusetts with your family and friends, remember to tell everyone NOT to look back on the way out. God bless you and yours!

[Ol' Sparky]

With all the big government spending by the Bush Administration, this might be his last chance to rally many in the base to take the time to vote for him. Immediate steps should be taken toward a Constitutional Ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

[Ol' Sparky]

After all the socialism, talk isn't good enough this time. Bush must do everything within his power to appoint conservative judges and push for a Constitutional Ammendment defending traditional marriage. That's the only way I'd consider voting for him again.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

This could end the Democrat party as we know it.

This could also very well destroy, finally, the Democratic machine that is Massachusetts politics. The Democratic state party---whatever its formal name is---"came out" for Gay Marriage. Now, as I'm sure you know, the General Court is so dominated by Democrats that it might as well be all Democrats. Yet, ostensibly anyway, they're still beholden to do their constituent's bidding, and there's no way in hell the rank-and-file voters in Massachusetts favor gay marriage. The same voters who elected Mitt Romney in the face of an overwhelming Democratic machine? NO WAY.

The most powerful man in Massachusetts, Speaker of the House Tom Finneran, will not support gay marriage, thereby bucking his own party. So there you have it: power vs. machine.

[BlackElk]

You believe correctly.

[Ol' Sparky]

Something CAN be right now. The process for a Constitutional Ammendment protecting traditional marriage can be started by Bush. He can make more Pickering-like appointments. With all the socialist spending in Bush's first three years, that might be Bush's only chance to get millions of conservatives back to the voting booth and voting for him.

[kennedy]

Your attempt to equate opposition to same sex marriages with racism is just plain offensive. Hitler and Stalin imposed their beliefs on their citizens. Does that mean I can equate the Massachusetts Supreme Court with the Nazis and Communists?

Let's say I decide I want to marry my mother. Maybe I decide that I want to marry my mother and my sister. Do I have a constitutional right to do so? Why not, because most people find the idea disgusting? At least there is plenty of historical support for incestuous marriages and polygamy, unlike same sex marriages, which until a few years ago had never been recognized by any culture anywhere on the face of the earth.

In a republic such as the United States, if a majority of the citizens want to overrule thousands of years of custom and history and rewrite the concept to marriage to include same sex marriages, then they are free to do so through their duly elected representatives. It should not be imposed upon us by a few ultra liberal judges.

[Modernman]

this decision gives the blessing of society to an abominable act of mutual self-destruction.

Shrug. So what? The law does not exist to protect people from themselves.

It is a grave violation of our human rights

That's just silly. Whatever issues one may have with gay marriage, it in no way harms the rights of anyone else.

[Lael]

BTTT!

[Thinkin' Gal]

The slope just became a little more slippery.

It can't get any more slippery! It's been so lubed up with perversions, that it can't even take more grease.

Janet Jacko was a half-time peep show into America's soul, and it wasn't a pretty sight. Now here's this assault from the Bay/Gay State. Queen Babylon has been stripped bare.

[Ol' Sparky]

Bush can use the bully pulpit and twist arms in Congress to get the process toward a Constitutional Ammendment started.

[jla]

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

Oh? And just how did these new cases come to be? And how did this virus originate, and spread into the straight community?
You might want to actually start ANSWERING some of the questions being asked of you before you even think of acting like some sanctimonious liberal.

[Ol' Sparky]

If Bush can push Congress into a $540 billion dollar Medicare bill, he can do the same with Constitutional Ammendemnt defending traditional marriage.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

The law does not exist to protect people from themselves.

Bravo Sierra it does. I'll try your line the next time I light up a joint in front of a cop and see what happens . . .

[el_texicano]

Exactly my thoughts. So the court "rules" on gay marriage. What if the legislature in Mass. does diddly squat on the ruling and essentially ignores them????

Is the court gonna waltz over and b*tch slap the legislature in May???? Who's gonna enforce the 'courts' 'ruling'???? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

[Modernman]

Bravo Sierra it does. I'll try your line the next time I light up a joint in front of a cop and see what happens . . .

So, you're okay with government passing nanny-state laws to protect consenting adult from their own stupidity? Laws such as smoking bans, prohibition, laws outlawing junk food etc. etc. Maybe a law requiring that everyone practice safe sex?

Just because certain laws exist, doesn't mean they should.

[Heatseeker]

Wonder if this edict from the liberal elite will have any impact in the next caucuses: Michigan, Washington on Saturday (and Maine on Sunday)?

[Wolfstar]

KantianBurke: Not a day goes by (perhaps not an hour) that finds you MIA on here sowing doubt about President Bush — no matter what the thread or topic. Well this time it can be proven in plain English that you don't know what the 'H' you are talking about. The ball is not in the President's court. The United States Constitution places authority to initiate Amendments to it in the Congress and the states. The best any president can do when it comes to Constitutional amendments is to express support or lack thereof, depending on the issue. GWB already has expressed support for an amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Herewith, verbatim, is Article V of the Constitution:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

[Valpal1]

Well, I'm glad to hear that not everyone in MA is a sheep, but I am worried. Is there a grassroots groundswell of concercned citizens demanding that the legislature defy or discipline the SC?

If the citizens don't bully their legislature into doing right and telling these judges to STFU, then what.

How does MA get their SC judges and how do they get rid of them? Can they be impeached or recalled? What does it take and is any group attempting it?