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.

[puroresu]

#####The court did not issue an order. It issued an advisory opinion.#####


Actually, if I recall correctly, the court originally gave the legislature six months to change the law (i.e, to legalize gay marriage) or they (the supreme court) would order gay couples to be issued marriage licenses regardless of what the law said. Some politicians tried to find some lame middle ground by asking the court if civil unions could be substituted for marriage. The court's response was to declare that nothing short of total obedience to their order to legalize gay marriage would be accepted.

[Modernman]

I quote from the front page: "Last year, as the inevitable war against Iraq drew closer, more and more of the "useful idiots" of the left began crawling out of the woodwork, organizing so-called "anti-war" protests."

Calling a group of people "useful idiots" is quite different from referring to another poster as an "idiot."

But you already knew that.

[Kahonek]

"Please show me the statistics that prove people who perform homosexual acts stay in permanent relationships."

Oh, give me a break! Please show me the statistics that prove people who perform heterosexual acts stay in permanent relationships. Some do, most don't (and we've got centuries of societal encouragement to do so).

You seem to think that if we ignore homosexuality, it will go away. Perhaps AIDS will just stop. Why do you think that?

I don't encourage IDU or any kind of sex because these aren't things that I think need encouragement. They will happen anyway. You're suggesting that encouraging marriage encourages sex? Been married lately?

[Kahonek]

"Studies have shown gays cannot stick with one partner for more than about 1.5 years."

Indeed, you are improperly citing the results of a single flawed study. First, the study had nothing to do with marriages. Second, the 1.5-year time period was the mean, rather than the maximum length of a "relationship" in that particular study (incidentally, how long do you think the mean heterosexual "relationship" is?). The truth is that we have no idea how long gay marriages would last in Mass.

[KantianBurke]

how's about you try reading my ALL my posts rather than picking one out of the blue? There ya go!

[jde1953]

"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?"

I was attempting to do nothing of the sort. I was pointing out that the definition of marriage HAS changed over the centuries. Do you deny that?

As for "liberal judges imposing beliefs," consider the following scenario. In Berkeley, California, the duly elected representatives rewrite the definition of restricted firearms to include ALL armaments, including all handguns, shotguns, and rifles(not just bazookas, mortars, grenades, etc.) This overrules some 200 years of constitutional definitions according to the second amendment. The resulting law is put to a vote of the people of Berkeley, and, "liberal" folk that they are, they approve it by a resounding majority. The law is appealed to a court, and the judges rule it to be unconstitutional. Am I correct in presuming that you would be enraged that the judges had gone in direct contradiction to the expressed wishes of the people and their duly elected representatives?

Or are you really saying that state judges should do their job evaluating laws in terms of the state's constitutions only when the result would be one that pleases you?

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping - Just checked in to FR, is this a duplicate of the article I just pinged everyone to?

Anyone wanting on or off this highly active and soon to be interactive ping list, ping me~!

[concerned about politics]

(incidentally, how long do you think the mean heterosexual "relationship" is?).

Due to liberalism and the NOW whores butting their noses into Americas homes, about 10 years before the first "affair."

Queers are like dogs. They smell a butt they like, and jump it. That's what "Sexually dysfunctional" means.
Some dysfunctionals have sex with the same gender, some with farm animals, some with feet. The American people think it's vile, so the queers call in their fascist lawyers to force their perversions onto the rest of the Americans. They FORCE others to accept their perversion.
Homosexuality is an illness. It's needs to b treated as such.

[Kahonek]

"Actually, if I recall correctly, the court originally gave the legislature six months to change the law ... nothing short of total obedience to their order to legalize gay marriage would be accepted."

Not really. The court originally legalized gay marriage. They stayed that ruling in order to give the legislature time to respond, in whatever way they chose. The legislature can do whatever they want, including changing the language of the current law to include gay couples or starting the constitutional ammendment process.

[concerned about politics]

Indeed, you are improperly citing the results of a single flawed study. First, the study had nothing to do with marriages. Second, the 1.5-year time period was the mean, rather than the maximum length of a "relationship" in that particular study

A recent study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1-1/2 years on average — even as homosexual groups are pushing nationwide to legalize same-sex "marriages."
Washington Times.

[Kahonek]

"Due to liberalism and the NOW whores butting their noses into Americas homes, about 10 years before the first "affair.""

Really? Sounds like you're talking about marriages, rather than relationships. The study referenced was about relationships. If you were to look at the average length of the heterosexual relationship (including, but not limited to marriages), I suspect it would be less than ten years.

[raloxk]

I am guessing by 2006-07, should Kerry win, This type of ruling will come from the Supreme Court

[Kahonek]

"A recent study on homosexual relationships finds they last 1-1/2 years on average — even as homosexual groups are pushing nationwide to legalize same-sex "marriages.""

Okay. The title alone confirms everything that I just said in my post. Your point?

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

They will happen anyway.

Ahhh... now we are getting somewhere. As long as it "happens anyway" we should encourage it, endorse it, and make it legal. Murder "happens anyway." Rape "happens anyway." Homosexuality "happens anyway." AIDS "happens anyway." We should accept and endorse these things.

Or do you pick and choose the things that you want to encourage, even if those acts kill people?

[concerned about politics]

Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last at least 10 years, and researchers report that more than three-quarters of married people say they have been faithful to their vows.

[Kahonek]

"Homosexuality is an illness. It's needs to b treated as such."

Curious -- as a mental health professional, I would be interested in how one "treats" homosexuality successfully.

[Kahonek]

"Or do you pick and choose the things that you want to encourage, even if those acts kill people?"

I certainly do pick and choose the things that I want to encourage, as I would hope that you do too. You apparently pick and choose the parts of a post you read. Let me repeat myself:

You're suggesting that encouraging marriage encourages sex? Been married lately?

[puroresu]

The day a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of gays to marry is ratified, I'll agree with your analogy.

The provisions of the Massachusetts constitution used by the judges in the gay marriage case were never in anyone's wildest dreams intended to authorize the courts to legalize gay marriage. The judges simply decided that they personally favored gay marriage, perverted the actual meaning of the state constitution, and then imposed their belief on the people of Massachusetts for no better reason than an arrogant confidence that they could get away with it.

In contrast, the second amendment was explicitly designed to protect our rights to arm ourselves.

A better analogy to the Massachusetts gay marriage decision would be one in which the justices personally believe that handguns are dangerous, so they order the legislature to ban them despite having no constitutional authority to do so. They then announce that if the legislature fails to comply, they'll start ordering local police to confiscate people's guns without legislative authority.

[Kahonek]

"Among heterosexuals, by contrast, 67 percent of first marriages in the United States last at least 10 years, and researchers report that more than three-quarters of married people say they have been faithful to their vows."

Again, this statistic refers to MARRIAGE, not RELATIONSHIPS IN GENERAL. This makes it a flawed comparison. You seem to be adept at posting tidbits that support every point I am trying to make. You're not a bad person to have around in an argument...

[concerned about politics]

Curious -- as a mental health professional, I would be interested in how one "treats" homosexuality successfully.

I'm not sure. When they kept them in the insane asylums, we didn't have the child molestations or diseases we have today. They were right back then. They were a danger to society.
Now that they're out, I'm not sure what America can do unless they're readmitted for observation.