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.

[AdamSelene235]

Whatever family law is in practice doesn't negate its legitimacy in principle, just as the existence of crooked cops doesn't negate the legitimacy of law enforcement in principle.

True. But if the vast majority of cops were crooked I would find hard to make a case for expanding the powers of law enforcement.

Government intervention in marriage is currently doing more harm to society than good. In fact, the State is using marriage as a excuse to dominate and control men and expand its powers over the upbringing of children.

Now you wish to Federalize marriage?

I could easily name 10 more urgent modifications to Constitution. This is feel good fantasy legislation. It won't do jack to prevent this society's slide into decadence.

[Aquinasfan]

I could easily name 10 more urgent modifications to Constitution.

Except for the criminalization of abortion, I can't think of one.

This is feel good fantasy legislation. It won't do jack to prevent this society's slide into decadence.

That's a judgement that we'll have to agree to disagree on.

[moehoward]

bump

[FUMETTI]

Murdering thugs? Yes. Was Shepard stupid not to hit on guys in a gay bar?

Yes.

Nothing excuses murder, but the old saying about watch what you do and say never rung more true. I do not see you cry for people who are killed for being Christian (like the girl at Columbine)...you are only aware of gay related incidents while ignoring the fact that gays are often the perpetrators as well as the victims. Now do you understand, punky?

Oh, you are so wrong because you just want to disagree with me for the sake of disagreement. Ah, now the old line by gays, if you are offended by a gay proposal, you must be gay yourself. Then we should put it to gays (like the "lesbian" you supposedly hit on that spurned you). If she later went to a friend and screamed, then she must be straight.

[FUMETTI]

By the way, idiot, why are you here on a conservative site? Did bartcop.com or democrats.com threw you off for irrational stupidity or was it just insipidness.

[FUMETTI]

The American people demand that marriage be defined between a man and a woman, thus a Constitutional Amendment is needed.

The majority culture (straight) deserves the define their society the way they want.

And there is no such thing as "gay marriage." It is a PARODY of marriage, just like two kids pretending to be husband and wife. It is only called marriage because gays know this is the ultimate intrusion of heterosexual tradition.

Do I like another intrusion of government? In this case, no. The same goes with the Patriot Act. I feel safer because of it and I have nothing to hide, so why worry?

[FUMETTI]

"I've mistakenly hit on lesbians in the past and gotten nothing worse than the cold shoulder. Lesbians are, generally speaking, pacifists."

Says who? You innate desire to contradict everything I say? Your debating skills are subpar, to say the least. "Generally speaking" my foot. Thanks for citing irrefutable proof as well, kid, that lesbians are "generally speaking," pacificts. You live in a pretty strange world. I hope not too many people have entered it lately.

[counterpunch]

[Modernman]

I do not see you cry for people who are killed for being Christian (like the girl at Columbine)...

And you base this on what? Since we've never actually discussed anything to do with Columbine, you are pulling this statement out of a certain orifice. Try to stay on topic.

Then we should put it to gays (like the "lesbian" you supposedly hit on that spurned you). If she later went to a friend and screamed, then she must be straight.

Now you're just babbling.

[Modernman]

By the way, idiot, why are you here on a conservative site? Did bartcop.com or democrats.com threw you off for irrational stupidity or was it just insipidness.

Nice. Great argument. You're unable to come up with any rational arguments so you resort to (1) name-calling and (2) questioning my conservativism.

If you believe that I'm a troll or disruptor, please feel free to contact the moderator. Of course, your use of insults in this post might get their attention if someone hit the abuse button. Personally, though, I prefer to leave your post up because it shows the stunning level of your arguing prowess.

[Modernman]

Thanks for citing irrefutable proof as well, kid, that lesbians are "generally speaking," pacificts.

LOL. Coming from a guy who argued that if you hit on a lesbian in a bar, they would react violently. I guess you base this on experiences while hanging out in gay bars?

You live in a pretty strange world. I hope not too many people have entered it lately.

Well, I see that you live in Rochester, NY, which is not a bad town, but not a place I would say is particularly representative of the country as a whole. So, I think you're on pretty shaky ground if you're trying to preach about what America is and isn't like these days.

[Kahonek]

Sorry not to get back to you sooner... I had to duck out. In answer to your question, the case would occur quite infrequently. It is legal in some states, illegal in others. In some states, the birth certificate matters, in other states it's the genes. In a state where genes matter and such an individual marries anyway, that marriage will be declared null and void by a court if anyone were to challenge it (e.g. heirs of the spouse). If the county clerk knows about the genes, a license will not be issued.

[Kahonek]

"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."

First, we don't really have any idea how long the average gay lifespan is, for methodological reasons we could get into if you want. Second, it would seem that those are in stable relationships would be the most likely to attain retirement age.

[Kahonek]

"There is a difference between heterosexuals dating until they find an acceptable long-term partner, and short-term gay liasons."

Okay, but I don't really see it. A lot of heterosexuals I know date and sleep around in very short "relationships," and a lot of gay people I know date and sleep around in very short "relationships." Some of each end up settling down with a partner.

"Men and women enter into long-term relationships even without the benefit of marriage."

Certainly. That would apply to both gay and straight men and women.

"long-term relationships constitute the majority of adult male-female relationships."

I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that at any given time, more straight adults are in long-term relationship than are in short-term relationships. However, I think that the overall number of short relationships for the average individual is much larger than the overall number of long ones.

"On the other hand, despite the fact that long-term gay relationships do exist, they are in the minority."

That may well be. My point is that we don't have good data documenting the nature (or causes) of this discrepancy. There are a lot of problems with the study that was cited.

[Kahonek]

"You tell us doc. With very few exceptions, homosexuality is learned behavior."

The reason I'm asking is that I don't know, and neither does any other "doc." We don't have enough data to propose any effective "treatment." We certainly don't have enough data to back up your assertion that homosexuality is generally a learned behavior (although it may be). People can speculate all they like. However, when they start sending gay people in for "treatment," they'll find that there's no credible "treatment" that's been proven efficacious. It is unethical to promise "treatment" that is invasive and has no documented efficacy.

[SauronOfMordor]

The amendment route appears to be the ONLY route for protecting marriage.

You assume that even an Amendment will stop activist judges

The only thing that will stop activist judges will be a yearly referendum on their fitness from the voters. 51% unhappy, and out you go, to be replaced by somebody appointed by the executive and approved by the senate. More than 67% disapproval, and you forfeit your pension and are disbarred.

[visualops]

Okay, but I don't really see it. A lot of heterosexuals I know date and sleep around in very short "relationships," and a lot of gay people I know date and sleep around in very short "relationships." Some of each end up settling down with a partner.

Well, despite that you've stretched the definition of relationship to basically include all encounters, the "some of each" is the deal breaker. "Some" for straights, is actually "most", and "some" for gays is just that, "some". The gay long-term relationships (for gay men) are also less likely to be monogamous.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that at any given time, more straight adults are in long-term relationship than are in short-term relationships.

Well, you restated what I said (long-term relationships constitute the majority of adult male-female relationships). In 2002, 52% of all people over the age of 15 were married.

"However, I think that the overall number of short relationships for the average individual is much larger than the overall number of long ones"

A woman dates, let's say, 6 different men in the span of time from high school til age 26. Those relationships could be a few dates, or a couple of years courtship. Anyway, guy number six hangs in there, and they get married. They stay married (and eventualy die).
So, duh, she's had more short term relationships than long term.

The real question though, is how do we see marrige-why do people get married, and why are/should there be benefits to that special relationship.
The basic answer, is family. There are legal ties and benefits (and liabilities), because marriage is not just 2 people shacking up for convenience. Marriage is a legal and moral lifetime commitment.

[FUMETTI]

Modernjerk: "LOL. Coming from a guy who argued that if you hit on a lesbian in a bar, they would react violently. I guess you base this on experiences while hanging out in gay bars?"


LOL yourself, loser boy! It is more like you are SOL...for your backtracking and arrogance getting your widdle panties in a bind. I was in a college bar, loserman. That attracts all kinds of people. Duh, maybe if you went to college instead of failing eighth grade nine times you would understand it.

It seems to be YOU the one experienced at gay bars. I hope you were even rejected there as well. Then again, you probably look like a wimp and a sitting duck for abuse. ;-)

[FUMETTI]

Modernloser: "Well, I see that you live in Rochester, NY,"

Gee, not a bad guess. I suppose you have joined MENSA based on your brilliant attempts at teleopathy.

Modernloser: "which is not a bad town, but not a place I would say is particularly representative of the country as a whole."

You having only visited there, that is no way to judge a metropolitan area. FYI, bozo, I have lived in Long Island, Boston, Tampa Florida, Maine, and Maryland. I am sure you will up the ante and claim you have lived in Haiti, the Andes, and Saskatchewan, but either way you will come up with a less than salient way to contradict me.

"So, I think you're on pretty shaky ground if you're trying to preach about what America is and isn't like these days."

No, I am right on target. Just because you hang up with body pierced degenerates and drug taking losers, it does not make YOU worldly. In fact, you are merely the representative of unsophisticated, immature youth who think they know everything, but in the end are uniformly ignorant and pathetic when defending their POV. You are among those unwashed vermin. Grow up, and be a man, for crissakes. LOL

[FUMETTI]

ModernFool: "Nice. Great argument."

Why can't you answer a simple question? Did I make you stutter when I inquired about your reasons to be here?

ModernFool: "You're unable to come up with any rational arguments so you resort to (1) name-calling and (2) questioning my conservativism."

1. That is a poor analysis because you have already contradicted yourself and have backtracked, only using derogatory terms like "hater" "bigot" et al. which is not debate terms, but is actually the rantings of an unhappy man (you), bitter at the fact you need attention by coming here and "challenging" conservatives on their values and abilities as conversationalists. You, my friend, need to pick yourself off from the canvas and dust yourself off, and start over.

ModernJerk: "If you believe that I'm a troll or disruptor, please feel free to contact the moderator."

Why waste my time? I like shooting fish in a barrel. From the looks of things, you are getting pummelled here by the FR posters. I like a good cyber execution...let me cheer them on while you choke on every post.

ModernIdiot: "Of course, your use of insults in this post might get their attention if someone hit the abuse button."

Oh, now you are trying to use power because you have no power to persuade or converse. That may be a fault of your own personal "issues." I have never been in any trouble here, and I have a good reputation. YOU are merely an agent provacateur (an immature one, at that) who really loathes himself from the looks of your posts. I feel sorry for you, but then, you bring on your own pain.

ModernNerd: "Personally, though, I prefer to leave your post up because it shows the stunning level of your arguing prowess."

Actually, I have received compliments and good emails from several people. You see, this is cyberspace. You don't know me from Adam. I don't reveal any RL information about myself that can trace me to an address or identity.

I don't take message boards seriously. Politics is a great and longterm passion for me and I have been into it since I was eight years old, and have written extensively about it and have been published. You mean not an iota to me because your own apparent narcissism is hiding your own lack of intelligence, only a need to "crank one up."

Many of my friends are liberals, and several girlfriends were as well, so it is not the philosophy which offends me. It is your judgemental, arrogant, immature, and inflammatory tone which has made you a joke here in a record amount of time.

I am sure you run to bartcop.com or michaelmooore.com and brag "I am really pissing off Freepers" for some cyber backslaps from the other degenerates you associate with online

Now run along little boy, go back to your cyber sandbox and rationalize your own mental issues.

Have a good one, troll.