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.

[rikkir]

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

They are also meant to protect institutions, property, etc. such as the isntitution of marriage. Marriage is defined as a union (civil, social, and a covenant before God) between a male and a female. It's main purpose was the continuation of our species, in other words procreation. God did not send down the edict of marriage so two men could have self gratifying unnatural copulation and insurance benefits. If you want to change insurance laws (for instance if two good friends share a house for financial reasons and want to extend benefits to each other) change those laws, but why destroy one of the moral foundations that our society has been built on. Is your goal anarchy? Is it the reverting of our species to an animal like state? Would one of the goals be that we can run around and have sex with anyone with no consequenses or commitment(see abortion). I dont see the need for same sex marriages except for the continuation of an agenda that involves the complete removal of any moral standard (religious or otherwise) from our society.
Maybe you'll say I'm backwards, simple and a prude, but I do subscibe to the theory that our republic can not stand without a foundation based on morality. Everyday, through a consistant incrementalism from the left, that foundation is chipped away. I am afraid, because of apathy of good and decent people, that we may already be over the cliff.

"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."


Does this view include drugs? How about incest (adult children)? What about beastiality? Where do you draw the line on that consenting adults thing.

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


Pedophilia by defination is not rape (act of violence), are there not laws dealing with that. Or maybe we should include that in the privacy of the bedroom category such as that fine outstanding homosexual group NAMBLA advocates.
At some point we as a society have to say enough, and stop the slide down the slope.

[BlackElk]

This is about the recognition and governmental subsidy of perverted behavior taking place in the privacy of the bedrooms of the lavender canoodlers. No one proposed patrolling those bedrooms. That does not mean that their twisted behavior is "normal" or can or ought to be regarded as the basis of "marriage" or ought to be subsidized by normal people. Congress ought also to remove tax deductibility for benefits provided to lavender " unions" just as dog, ummm, lovers cannot get tax-subsidized medical benefits for Fido, just because they have become intimate with Fido.

We will be having enough problem with the financial burden of Social Security without having to provide survivors' benefits to Lance's lovely, er, wife, Bruce. Nor ought Bruce to be allowed, if abandoned by Lance, to apply for welfare benefits as a displaced homemaker and boy toy unfit for other, ummm, occupations. If the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause and its state counterparts are construed to give Bruce "equal rights," then repeal them. they are general trouble in any event.

[Modernman]

What if the legislature in Mass. does diddly squat on the ruling and essentially ignores them????

That's called anarchy. If the legislators feel they cannot, in good conscience, follow the court order, they should resign.

[USCG-RET]

MI dude:

"They have 'earned amnesty'. Pres. Bush's plan makes them go home to apply."

How about putting them in *jail*??? Just a few hundred or so. Enough to let the rest of them in Mexico know that if they come here ILLEGALLY, they end up in prison. Let them apply for Visas like the Europeans do. They shouldn't get special rights because they live next door.

MI dude:
"Screwing our vets"- That is just a HUGE load of horsedung. Explain yourself, man!

There are *still* tens of thousands of active military personnel on food stamps. Base housing in a lot of places is sub-standard. He should spend 5 billion on them (pay and benifits) before sending one dime to Africa for AIDS programs (that will just be ripped off by the thugs that run those countries anyway).

[PISANO]

The ball is in your court Mr. President.

He is the PRESIDENT not a KING nor a Dictator. The only thing he can do is speak out against same sex marriage he has NO AUTHORITY to change the RULING.

[Teacher317]

Sounds like the nation is moving forward.

A proponent of the "Progressive" movement, are we?

A victory for human rights...

Entirely wrong, my friend. This is an attack on a religious sacrament. Marriage was around looong before Massachusetts. Imagine if that court demanded that the Legislature pass laws forbidding a Muslim sacrament, like the hajj (trip to Mecca), or, more on point, forbidding them from asking women to wear head-dresses of whatever kind.

If the court truly cared about Equal Protection (which is the issue here), they would tell government to create legislation forming "Civil Unions", and requiring that they be treated the same as marriages in the eyes of the State. That would respect the religious institution, yet provide equal rights for all citizens. Henceforth, every marriage certificate would have an accompanying form, titled Civil Union certificate. Then government could continue to legislate as they always have, merely addressingcivil unions rather than married couples.

The Court VERY INTENTIONALLY went another way, expressing a preference for one lifestyle, and demanding that another accept the intentional defiling of a few thousand years of tradition.

The other major problem here, aside from the religious attack and the moral implications, is that budgetary allocations are going to get one HELL of a shock next year... not that any moron (like myself! LOL) could see it coming or anything.

[Old Professer]

This is not an issue of rights, morals or health; it is a definition.

The only recourse is to dissolve all marriage ceremonies and replace them with commitment I.O.Us; each union will be bound by the terms of its individual contract and the state will simply review the contract for conformity to contract law.

All titles such as Mr. or Mrs. will be removed from these contracts and be replaced by the gender-neutral term, Co-unit.

All members of the same household whether present before the contract or afterward shall be known as Sub-unit# ( i.e. Sub-unit1, Sub-unit2...).

Sub-units will have no surviving claim apart from the terms of the original contract or an amended version signed by both Co-units upon presentation and review by the state.

All laws pertaining to the use of the genitals of any person not covered by such contracts will be held to be taxable and once taxed all monies collected will be held by the state to satisfy debts common to rapes, STD treatments and unemployment benefits for needless divorce lawyers; contract-covered Co-units will be taxed 3% of their gross earnings each year the contract is force and all such monies will be used to raze and redevelop all church properties located within the bounds of the state, county and city in which the Co-units reside.

There will be a 5-day waiting period to purchase any blunt instrument, any sharp instrument and any length of cord, twine, rope or fabric exceeding 750 millimeters in gross length.

Alcoholic beverages will be served free of charge at all roadside rest areas and in all public schools.

Certified spayed and neutered unattached units will be exempt from all taxes except for those on food and clothing.

[Dalan]

Well, this is my first post to Free Republic; I just registered. This MA ruling brought me here. I'm a life-long MA resident, and I'm so utterly frustrated, disgusted, and embarrased [to be a MA resident] right now that I really don't know what to do.

I used to not really care about the "gay agenda". I've known gay people; I don't harbor them any ill-will. I used to be generally in favor of the idea of "civil unions" to extend legal protections to homosexual couples.

But it is clear now that legal protections and civil rights is not what this is about at all. It's about altering the very definition of our culture and society, to suit the whims of a radical, tiny minority.

The manner in which the gay agenda is being forced down our throats is completely polarizing me - I won't even support civil unions now - the Gay community and their allies in the activist judiciary have made it perfectly clear what their agenda is, and I don't like it.

[nutmeg]

ping!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Massachusetts ping list.

[Loyalist]

Judicial independence will have to be reconsidered in the light of increasing judicial tyranny not just in the United States, but throughout the rest of the common law world.

Now would be a good time to expand the legislative power to override court decisions and allow judges to be more easily removed for abuse of office--in other words, not just for criminal or civil malfeasance, but also for decisions which subvert the underpinnings of free society.

[TheEaglehasLanded]

What are the phone numbers for the legislators?

[nutmeg]

ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.

[Loyalist]

Nonsense.

Banning interracial marriage was an attack on the institution of marriage as much as legalizing homosexual `marriage` is.

[Jim Noble]

I live in New Hampshire, thanks be to God!

Thanks for your good wishes, in any event!

[concerned about politics]

Well, this is my first post to Free Republic; I just registered. This MA ruling brought me here. I'm a life-long MA resident, and I'm so utterly frustrated, disgusted, and embarrased [to be a MA resident] right now that I really don't know what to do.

Vote against the vile left wing. If you want dysfunction, you'll find it on the left.

[BlackElk]

Perhaps we can permanently quarantine all those who have AIDS or are discovered to have it and we can resolve your disagreement. It is the leprosy of our time and is quite cummonicable and ought to be dealt with as the public health problem that it is.

Unless and until that time, it would certainly appear that cajungirl has the best of this argument until proven otherwise which is ratherrrr, unlikely.

You ought also to consider that anal sex is merely more common among the lavender set and that some couples consisting of a man and a woman may be sharing AIDS just as the lavenders do.

Finally, when a man and a woman who are virgins and not sharers of needles with others and live up to the commitment of exclusivity in their marriage and remember always to put things only where they belong, AIDS is rather rare.

[mwl1]

Great issue for Bush vs Kerry... K says he is "against gay marriage" but his record clearly demonstrates otherwise.

Let K prevaricate and fumble and bumble and try to craft a win-win down the middle... hemming and hawing won't sell anywhere in the South or Middle America.

[Jim Noble]

Why is it ever a contest between the lesser of two evils?

It's the human condition.

[Doug Loss]

If the legislators feel they cannot, in good conscience, follow the court order, they should resign.

Since when does the court get to dictate what laws the legislature should pass? This court order is invalid on the face of it and should be completely ignored.

[Dalan]

The www.mass.gov portal has all the contact info for the governor and all the state reps and senators.