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.

[Wolfstar]

I'm delighted that my quoting the Constitution has had such an effect on you.

[Valpal1]

Okay, but how do you get rid of them?

Do the people hold recall rights or is it legislative impeachment only?

[xdem]

Why look to "W"? He won't sacrifice political capital for other important issues like campaign finance reform.

Why would he sacrifice any capital for the gay marriage issue?

The man we have as president is willing to sell out any constituancy. Don't people realize that yet?

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Too bad there are a lot of mean spirited people, like I_love_weather, in our society who encourage killing with AIDS.

Thousands of people have walked away from homosexual behavior. That act alone can save many lives. PLease have some compassion, I_love_weather, please!

[beelzepug]

"She's my #6, daughter #4."

Well, you'd be in big trouble here in the Peoples' Republic of Washington, buddy, where one of our illustrious state legislators has introduced a bill encouraging families to have no more than two children. I expect this marriage bit won't be too far behind.

[puroresu]

Everything you said applies to shoplifters as well.

Marriage is the way our civilization celebrates the bonding of two people of the opposite sex in a natural union. There's no reason to expand that definition to include unions which negate the purpose of marriage and its definition.

[longtermmemmory]

It can be done faster when the government wants to move faster.

Remeber we officially have 38 states with DOMA's. The overwhelming majorities passed the Federal DOMA.

All those votes would have to repeat for the FMA or risk political suicide.

[jimt]

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

Anticipating the gay marriage advocates, they'll tell you a child can't give consent, hence adult-child marriage isn't possible.

This problem does not obtain with multiple partners, animals (animals are property), or inanimate objects (property). Or cadavers, as they're also property.

The gay marriage advocates haven't a leg to stand on to prohibit (discriminate against) the outlandish "marriages" I mention, as they're no more outlandish than the one they advocate.

Besides, it really isn't about "marriage", it's about forcing other people to acknowledge their perversion as something to "celebrate", and to bring down the force of law on anybody who dares to call homosexuality for the undesirable perversion it is.

[KantianBurke]

When you log onto FR, do you have your computer programmed to start playing the Mission Impossible soundtrack? Get a grip.

[onyx]

Why don't you read his State of the Union address?

Very clear. You are dead wrong.

[longtermmemmory]

Up untill now the civil unions have been rejected across state lines. The usurpation of Marriage is what homosexuals need to get across state lines and into the IMMIGRATION laws.

The federal codification will make marriage only a one man one woman deal. Civil unions would not cross state lines. (except in vermont and CF)

[Melas]

What is you expect the president to do?

[concerned about politics]

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.

See? How did that happen? Just because they have a dysfunctional sex fetish!!
People were nice to these deviates rather than demanding they be put back into the asylums. They were once considered a danger to society and locked up where they could recieve psychiatric help. AIDs has proven the wisdom of old to be correct.
Child molestation classes being held by NAMBLA are now Constitutional! Because good people did nothing to stop it.
I've never feared speaking out. Others should get over their "manufactured fear" and do the same.

[Dalan]

I really hope the rest of the country does turn on Massachusetts (this from a MA resident). Go ahead - boycott us, ridicule us, pass laws refusing to recognize Massachusetts' marriages.

Make fun of and defeat our current Presidential candidate.

It's the only hope. Believe it or not, MA does have a Conservative faction... we have Mitt Romney, and we have Jay Severin on the radio... I can only hope that this wretched state wises up!

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Um... the great thing about these threads is that you can go back and read previous posts. You claimed that I was "lobbing around personal insults." I say that I was not. My morality says that what I said to you were wonderful remarks. According to my new, improved, standards of morality, you have "outdated morality" (your phrase) so don't give me any of it. It is outdated and should be ignored.

[xdem]

> Why don't you read his State of the Union address?
> Very clear. You are dead wrong.

I hope I am wrong. But saying isn't doing.

[beelzepug]

"Billions for something that any reasonable person would take action not to get."

Right. My mother is suffering from Alzheimer's but I guess research on this is low priority. Probably because these folks are old and don't have as much to "offer" as the wealthy gay lobby. While not likely to get AIDS, many of us will eventually end up with some form of dementia.

[KantianBurke]

If its not within the scope of Bush's job why did he make reference to a Constitutional Amendment during his SOTU? Why, if its not his problem, has he been quoted along the lines of "marriage is between a man and woman and I've got my lawyers looking at ways to keep it that way"? Either it IS his problem and he should match his rhetoric with action or it isn't and he should make that clear to those Americans who are concerned about this issue.

[concerned about politics]

And homosexuals should also be taxed more to pay for the health care costs of their spreading diseases.
Smokers have to pay. So should homosexuals. Homosexuals should also be banned from public places, for fear of potential air born mutations. If second hand smoke is suppose to kill based on no facts, imagine the health risks of homosexual air. We know where their mouths have been !!!

[maeng]

Thanks for all the info reaffirming my point and statistics. It is so shameful for tax dollars to have to be used to chase after a disease that could be prevented.