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.

[jwalsh07]

Do you think that laws should be based on statistical anomalies as a rule or just in particular cases?

[FUMETTI]

I pray not either; violence is not a way to solve society's ills. It will take massive public pressure to reverse this. I just think the more "mentally off" citizens will just go off the rocker, especially those who hate gays as it is. This after all, is the center of human society and the building blocks of community...marriage and family. This is more than just legalities, but a way to restructure human dynamics and dilutes the majesty and dignity of marriage. Yes, gays bring up "what about Britney Spears and her joke 55 hour marriage" as if abuses of marriage and divorce negate their goals and place in society.

1. Gays will have Britney Spears like "marriages" as well if gay marriage is approved.

2. Two guys can claim to be "gay" and have benefits if they room together...and get medical insurance breaks. How do these gays show "commitment"? Kissy kissy in front of the judge? It will happen.

3. Gays will show they are no better at keeping marriages together as straights.

4. This topic is making me ill. I am going to read the thread for now on!

[tuesday afternoon]

Ticked off a couple of legislators royally when a normal woman and a transgender married recently, but it was all perfectly legal.

Are you saying the transgender was a woman who was genetically a man? To which you replied "yes". That is a genetic female marrying a genetic male.

The other case, a woman who is genetically a male but externally a female wanting to marry a man, how often does that status occur statistically? How do you know it is illegal? In this case, the birth certificate would identify the woman as a woman, and she should therefore be legally able to marry.

[muawiyah]

Social Security survivor benefits?

You gotta' be nuts ~ their average lifespan is only 42 years. It's a rare gay who lives long enough to get his own Social Security to say nothing of having a "partner" to qualify as a survivor.

[WritableSpace]

Gays to Mas Supreme court: We Want To be Married

Mas SC: Okay here ya go-

[Lagal aid Interupt]

Legal aid: Uh we need to make sure the legislature has it's say.

Mas SC: Legislature? [snicker]We don't need no stinkin legislature.

[visualops]

There is a difference between heterosexuals dating until they find an acceptable long-term partner, and short-term gay liasons.
Men and women enter into long-term relationships even without the benefit of marriage (common law marriage). Without getting into a discussion of the rise in the divorce rate; long-term relationships constitute the majority of adult male-female relationships. On the other hand, despite the fact that long-term gay relationships do exist, they are in the minority.
The other issue is the "equality" argument. The fact that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women does not imply they aren't "equal". A man cannot marry his sister either. Is that not also "unequal"? After all, if they are consenting adults and promise to stay together the rest of their lives, isn't that what counts?
When decisions are made based on someone's concept of "fairness" or some sort of general all things are "equal" type of premise, then anything goes.

[McGavin999]

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

That's why I suggest we don't bother to alter the constitution. Let's just kick Mass. out of the US.

[DMZFrank]

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Sounds like the nation is moving forward. A victory for human rights...

Sounds more like a victory for a mental disorder...

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

This makes the Full Faith and Credit clause that much more interesting... Gay marriage has just been made legal in all 50 states.

I have read that there has been a public policy exemption carved from the Full Faith and Credit clause, which enables other states to not recognize homosexual marriage...

[DefCon]

"...Sounds like the nation is moving forward. A victory for human rights..."
- - -
Are you a queer?
Or do you just play one on Free Republic?

[Guillermo]

If a homosexual male had a WIFE he would be allowed to go see her in the hospital.

[RightWingAtheist]

Well, I don't consider gay marriage "depraved". As long as they're not hurting anyone, and aren't preying on children (or animals, or corpses, or cucumbers), I don't care what consenting adults do. At the very least, however, we should encourage the social values of monogamy and commitment, over rampant promiscuity and self-centeredness.

[jim35]

I hope this does doom Kerry! Some here say things can't get worse, blah blah, blah.......If we get stuck with Kerry there's no telling how low down and sleazy things can become. JMO

[Paulie]

The likes of this doesn't surprise Justice Anthony Scalia, if I remember his recent comments correctly.

[adiaireton8]

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

A society should not bestow any 'right' for individuals to engage in practices that are sufficiently harmful to that society. This is not about what gays deserve; to cast the issue in that way is a red herring. The issue has to do with whether government sanctioning of homosexual 'marriage' is sufficiently destructive of society that it ought not be done.

[jim35]

I find the timing of this ruling to be rather curious? Given apparent public opinion, I'm thinking the timing of this ruling couldn't have been a lot worse for John F'n Kerry. You'd think this judge would have waited awhile on this ruling. A few more months and Kerry wouldn't have had to deal with having his liberal stance on this issue aired. Surely these people are not so stupid and delusional that they think this will hurt Bush, especially when he just brought this up a day or two ago in his SOTU speech. Does anyone else find the timing of this ruling curious or have I just been listening to too many Clinton conspiracy folks?

[jim35]

It's all Bush's fault, right? Is that your point?