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.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

The best solution would be for the state to simply get out of the marriage game.

The state does have an obligation to uphold morals, like them or not. Society will not exist (as has been proved time and time again) when the state gives up on keeping morals in society.

[concerned about politics]

She said the Supreme Court and the Senate President is trying to take the vote away from the people.

She's right. The abortionists and homosexuals know Americans would never approve of what they do, so they use fascist litigation to get what they want. They go around the will of the people, and they find judges who will dictate our laws for us.

[Proud_texan]

"The state does have an obligation to uphold morals"

Just a thought but if God is removed from the state and the state no longer has a higher moral authority, but proclaims itself as the highest moral authority, is it still moral?

[Modernman]

What an idiot... There is no morality in your world because it's always open to change based on human desire

Re-read my post before lobbing around personal insults. There is a world of difference between following the 10C and encouraging others to do so, on the one hand, and passing laws which do so, on the other (and I'm talking about things like adultery, not murder).

The Ten Commandments are from God, not man. You have a lot of Christians and Jews to argue with if you don't think so

I don't care where they came from, one way or the other. People are free to follow religious rules such as no fornication, no sodomy, no adultery etc. However, those rules are not part of our secular laws nor should they be.

[KantianBurke]

Odd how my original post wasn't even intended as a flame against Bush and yet you paranoid bots turn it into one. Is simply rhetorically reminding the President that during his State of the Union address he made it clear that activist judges calling for gay marriage would be responded to with a Constitutional Amendment a bash? Those judges just said in legalese "FU Dubya," not I.

[EdReform]

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

Sorting out the facts on AIDS

"The reality is that the major causes of AIDS were, and continue to be, men having sex with men and people injecting themselves with drugs. In that order. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in 2001 fewer than 10,000 Americans contracted AIDS through heterosexual contact.

The total number of annual AIDS cases in the U.S. has declined significantly, particularly between 1995 and 1998. So have the number of unfortunates who’ve died from the malady.

Even in America, however, all the news isn’t so encouraging. Last month a CDC official reported a significant jump in the number of AIDS cases among homosexual men...

Federal dollars for AIDS are no exception. $100,000 was used to pay for a "drag queens’ ball" in New Jersey. $200,000 from one federally funded group was used for workshops described by a pro-homosexual newspaper as "hot, horny and healthy..."

Many HIV positive don't tell

"The study, which appears in the June issue of the American Journal of Public Health, involved a national sample of 606 gay and bisexual men, 287 heterosexual men, and 504 heterosexual women who were all HIV-positive and asked them about their sexual activity and disclosure practices over the last six months.

Researchers say the rates of sexual contact without disclosure of HIV-positive status found in the sample translates to 43,500 gay or bisexual men, 8,000 heterosexual men, and 7,500 women nationwide, all infected with HIV, who are engaging in sex without informing their partner of their HIV-positive status.

In addition, researchers say that because rates of HIV are higher among the homosexual community, some HIV-positive individuals may assume that sexual partners are aware of the risk of HIV transmission even if they don't disclose their HIV status..."

Risky sex strongest predictor of HIV

"Incidence of HIV among males 18 and older who said they had injected drugs and had engaged in homosexual activity within the previous six months was 10.4 percent per year. That was more than three times the infection rate (3.0 percent) for men who did not report having homosexual sex..."

Sodomy: A Public Health Risk

New study: homosexual men promiscuous - 42.9% in Chicago Shoreland Area had 60 partners

Young gay, bisexual men still hard hit by AIDS

Study Finds H.I.V. Infection Is High for Young Gay Men

Syphilis in gay men raises AIDS concern

U.S. sees HIV cases rise among gay, bisexual men

New HIV infections on the rise in SF

Gay HIV Rates Reach Record Level in UK

28 people in a 92-strong gay orgy proved to be HIV-positive

Gay-Related ImunoDeficiency Syndrome (GRIDS) Links

[concerned about politics]

Ohio House passes Protection of Marriage Act

Ohio isn't taking any chances. They're covering their butts (literaly).

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Just a thought but if God is removed from the state and the state no longer has a higher moral authority, but proclaims itself as the highest moral authority, is it still moral?

Interestingly enough... this is what is happening/has happened in the U.S. The results: Gay marriage. Special rights for people based on what they like to put their sex organs into. Special rights for people based on their skin color. The list goes on and on...

So, the answer to your question is, no, if God was eliminated and states (man) were left to decide morality, it would not be moral because it would have no God to answer to other than their own made up gods (money, sex, trees, democrats, etc.) who change based on feelings.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

They're covering their butts (literaly).

LOL!!! Good for them! Another state to consider moving to and/or visiting. I'll certainly not be visiting Mass again if they go through with marriage to whatever you put your sex organ in.

[el_texicano]

Actually, I would beg differ on the 'anarchy' view.

The history around the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government tells quite a different story than anarchy. There have been times in past history that the Supreme Court has ruled on an issue and the President (Jackson I seem to remember) just ignored them. In other words, it is a form of checks and balances.

One might dispute that this applies to the state level, but they were all set up more or less after the federal model.

The founders very well understood and intended the judicial branch to be the weakest of the branches.

So, if the governor does not enforce it and the legislature ignores the Mass. Supreme Court, the supremes may as well spit in the wind. And actually this is what should happen in order to reign in judicial activism.

[w1andsodidwe]

Multiple partners should be fine, animals should be fine, inanimate objects should be fine, etc.

Don't forget the neighbors two year old daughter or son.

If you have no moral compass anything goes.

[concerned about politics]

I'll certainly not be visiting Mass again if they go through with marriage to whatever you put your sex organ in.

Why in the world are Americans paying any attention to a small group of sexual dysfunctionals anyway? If they want to engage in some strange anus sex fetish, let them, but don't force society to approve of it! What is this nation thinking? What could be more vile? What's "normal" about it? It's sick! Even the wild animals know better.
No, I do not have to approve. There's no such thing as forced thought in this country.
Just say "no" to the perverts. It's easy, and it's free.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

...before lobbing around personal insults.

Don't be trying to force your version of morality on me. (what many in this thread base their arguments on...)

[Wolfstar]

Get off the innocent act, KB. Your post #4 said, "The ball is in your court Mr. President." Your point was clear, especially given your recent posting history. In response, I pointed out that the United States Constitution puts authority over initiating Constitutional amendments in the hands of Congress and the states, not the Executive Branch. Your refusal to even acknowledge this Constitutional fact makes your real agenda as plain as day.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Just say "no" to the perverts. It's easy, and it's free.

Not so fast... Laws are now on the books stating that you MUST say Yes(!) when the dysfunctionals want you to pay for their health care, house them, be given hiring preferences over your standard white guy, etc. If you ignore them you **can** be thrown in jail.

[puroresu]

#####Considering the lack of outcry from Mass. legislators, my feeling is that they do not really object to this ruling.#####


Several factors are at play here.

First, ever since the desegregation cases, the courts have posed as the embodiment of fashionable morality. The courts are painted as the greatest engine of "social progress" by our media, our school textbooks, and our law schools. The result has been decades of incremental power consolidation by the courts, and subsequent deference to that power by the legislative branches.

Second, many legislators prefer having controversial issues decided by the courts. It keeps them from having to vote on those issues directly. So a large segment of any legislature breaths a sigh of relief every time the courts usurp their power. There are no doubt many legislators in Massachusetts who would gladly turn EVERY issue over to the courts.

Third, the political class is generally far to the left of the electorate. They regard the "common folk", with their regular church attendance and their at least partial attachment to concepts of right and wrong, as rubes and nitwits. But they also have a fear of the people because of their ability to boot them from office. Few members of the Massachusetts legislature would openly argue for gay marriage or vote for it directly. That might lead to getting booted from office by the "rubes". But the court ruling gives them wiggle room. They can oppose overturning the decision on assorted technical grounds, while lying to their constituents about their true feelings. They can tell their constituents, "I oppose gay marriage as much as you do, but tragically the court gave us no option but to legalize it. As much as I oppose what the court did, I felt more harm would come to our system of government, more rancor would be created, and more divisiveness would occur, if we prolonged this debate by calling for constitutional conventions, etc. etc. etc."

This last point, by the way, explains why John Kerry, John Edwards, and many of the other presidential candidates say they oppose gay marriage, but are also opposed to doing anything to stop it. They know gay marriage will come to America not because the people want it, but because the people ramming it down our throats, the courts, don't have to ever stand for election.

[KantianBurke]

oh please, drama queen. I have an "agenda?" This is FR, not the CIA. Now if you want to interpret ever post of mine go righ ahead. Those of us on planet earth will get on with their lives.

[I_love_weather]

As another person said...

Gay people already take care of people in our hospitals...
Fight and die in our wars...
Serve as police officers and firemen (bet none of you would complain if they saved your life)
PAY TAXES...
PAY TAXES...
Teach in our schools...
And the list can go on and on and on

Seems to me they deserve all the rights that straight people have.

Too bad there are a lot of prejudice people in our society.

[Modernman]

Don't be trying to force your version of morality on me. (what many in this thread base their arguments on...)

Umm... by posting on this thread you open yourself to opinions you might not agree with. People disagreeing with you is not "forcing" their version of morality on you.

[Lady Eileen]

bttt