Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mass. Court: Gay Civil Unions Not Enough
FoxNews ^ | 2/4/4 | Fox News

Posted on 02/04/2004 11:35:26 AM PST by Wrigley

Mass. Court: Gay Civil Unions Not Enough

Wednesday, February 04, 2004

BOSTON — Massachusetts lawmakers must give gay and lesbian couples full and equal marriage rights, the state's highest court ruled Wednesday.

With its decision to back marriage and not the concept of civil unions, the court set the stage for the nation's first same-sex marriages (search) to take place beginning in mid-May. Plus, the court added fresh fuel to a debate that has split politicians, churches and families around the country.

The court's action clarified what it meant in November when it ruled that the state's marriage laws were unconstitutional. Massachusetts lawmakers wanted to know if the court would have accepted civil unions, a legal designation used by Vermont that conveys many of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion. The bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls short of marriage, is makes for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."

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 (search) had said the vote would be delayed.

The soonest a constitutional amendment could end up on the ballot would be 2006, meaning that until then the high court's decision will be Massachusetts law no matter what is decided at the constitutional convention.

"We've heard from the court, but not from the people," Gov. Mitt Romney (search) said in a statement. "The people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage."

Travaglini said he wanted time to talk with fellow senators before deciding what to do next.

"I want to have everyone stay in an objective and calm state as we plan and define what's the appropriate way to proceed," Travaglini said.

Conservative leaders said they were not surprised by the advisory opinion, and vowed to redouble their efforts to pass the constitutional amendment.

Mary Bonauto (search), an attorney who represented the seven couples who filed the lawsuit, said she anticipated a fierce battle, saying that "no matter what you think about the court's decision, it's always wrong to change the constitution to write discrimination into it."

When it was issued in November, the 4-3 ruling set off a firestorm of protest across the country among politicians, religious leaders and others opposed to providing landmark rights for gay couples to marry.

President Bush (search) immediately denounced the decision and vowed to pursue legislation to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Church leaders in the heavily Roman Catholic state also pressed their parishioners to oppose efforts to allow gays to marry.

And legislators were prepared to vote on a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would seek to make the court's ruling moot by defining as marriage as a union between one man and one woman -- thus expressly making same-sex marriages illegal in Massachusetts.

What the case represented, both sides agree, was a significant new milestone in a year that has seen broad new recognitions of gay rights in America, Canada and abroad, including a June U.S. Supreme Court decision striking a Texas ban on gay sex.

Legal experts, however, said that the long-awaited decision, while clearly stating that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage, gave ambiguous instructions to the state Legislature.

Lawmakers remained uncertain if civil unions went far enough to live up to the court's ruling -- or if actual marriages were required.

When a similar decision was issued in Vermont (search) in 1999, the court told the Legislature that it could allow gay couples to marry or create a parallel institution that conveys all the state rights and benefits of marriage. The Legislature chose the second route, leading to the approval of civil unions in that state.

The Massachusetts decision made no mention of an alternative solution, but instead pointed to a recent decision in Ontario, Canada, that changed the common law definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and led to the issuance of marriage licenses there.

The state "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples," the court wrote. "Barred access to the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions."

The Massachusetts case began in 2001, when the seven gay couples went to their city and town halls to obtain marriage licenses. All were denied, leading them to sue the state Department of Public Health, which administers the state's marriage laws.

A Suffolk Superior Court judge threw out the case in 2002, ruling that nothing in state law gives gay couples the right to marry. The couples immediately appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which heard arguments in March.

The plaintiffs argued that barring them from marrying a partner of the same sex denied them access to an intrinsic human experience and violated basic constitutional rights.

Over the past decade, Massachusetts' high court has expanded the legal parameters of family, ruling that same-sex couples can adopt children and devising child visitation right for a former partner of a lesbian.

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country with at 1.3 percent of the total number of coupled households, according to the 2000 census. In California, 1.4 percent of the coupled households are occupied by same-sex partners. Vermont and New York also registered at 1.3 percent, while in Washington, D.C., the rate is 5.1 percent.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: antifamily; civilunions; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; intolerantgays; leviticus; marriage; prisoners; redifiningmarriage; romans1; samesexunions; sodomites; statevsgod; tyrants
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last
To: kingu
This southafrican born woman judge certainly thinks she can do whatever the h*ll she pleases. Extreme black robe fever.

Fun options, what if Mass passed a law declaring homosexuality a mental illness and prohibited the mentally ill from marrying?

The state legislature can always pre-empt local gov. The state sets the standards for the issuance of licenses.

Couples would have to cross state lines, obtain a license from an non-mass jurisdiction. Then the Mass SC would have a FFC issue. The out of controll Mass court can't order the neighboring states to follow a mass order.

I have a theory, the Mass SC knows they can't force the state to pass a law. They could have overturned the Mass marriage law completly but they could not make them pass a law. This could just be the largest brass sphere bluff by the Mass SC.
21 posted on 02/04/2004 12:54:02 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: infractus2003
Zot.
22 posted on 02/04/2004 12:55:59 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Wrigley
How in the heck does a court command the legislature to write a law?

If I were a member of the Mass. state house, I'd be writing up legislation that proclaims that the courts should mind their own business.

What a bunch of arrogant sum'hillarys. :p

23 posted on 02/04/2004 1:02:45 PM PST by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I think your theory is correct, but to disregard it would create the implication that the rule of law does not matter.

The reason why I brought up the fact that county recorders record marriages is that yes, the state can forbid the issuance of licenses, but if someone from Mass. goes and gets married somewhere else, their marriage would be recorded -- since the judicial status at this moment is that the word marriage is redefined, couldn't someone get married out of country in a place that permits gay marriage, return, and then register their marriage?

It would take more than overturning or changing the requirements for an acceptable marriage to overcome this judicial fiat. Were I the legislature, I'd begin by bringing up impeachment proceedings and let these judges explain, under oath, exactly how the state constitution permits the judiciary to redefine words established by the legislature.

The liberals would love it, but the polls show that the people don't support this type of thing.
24 posted on 02/04/2004 1:04:53 PM PST by kingu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." Michenlangelo Signorile in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994.)

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? … marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all." (quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit…" [Emphasis added.]

25 posted on 02/04/2004 1:05:02 PM PST by johnmorris886
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: johnmorris886
Sullivan is basically writing that homsexuals are titilated by the forbidden fetish.

It all just proves that homosexuality is ONLY about sex and just about sex. Nothing more.

26 posted on 02/04/2004 1:16:24 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bayourod
The gays are seeking official government recognition that their lifstyle is acceptable. Visitation rights at hospitals is really insignificant compared to the "marriage" certificate framed and hanging on the wall.

Similar to the Equal Rights Amendment being purely symbolic.

I'm afraid that you are wrong about this - it goes WAY beyond something as trivial as hospital visitation rights. I don't know about Massachusetts, but in a community property state (of which there are a bunch in the South and West) the surviving spouse is entitled to 1/2 of all community property (i.e. all property acquired after marriage). The only exceptions are property that has retained its separate character for the duration of the marriage, gifts/inheritances from family (if the separate character is maintained), and property separated by a pre-nup or a post-nup.

Also, married folks can almost always put their spouses on their health insurance. Think about what THAT could cost us in increased premiums, esp. considering the far higher incidence of AIDS and other STD's among the homosexual population.

Finally, it is not symbolic because now those in favor of polygymous marriages, marriages to children or even animals will likely be approved, using this case and its reasoning as a precedent. This court borrowed from a Canadian decision, and it is far easier for a court in another state (esp. a neighboring state) to borrow from this decision than that of a foreign court.

The floodgates are now open.

27 posted on 02/04/2004 1:17:48 PM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Wrigley
Oops-- I was about to suggest these unelected despots be
denied commmuion. .. but que lastima es verdad these cross
dressers allready think they are the one who give God
communion.Pardon my twisted attempt at humor-but after the
commercials and halftime show at the Superbowl this year --
I am just trying to blend in with the MTV Hollyweird crowd
The same policy me thinks President George uses about
keepin the enemies close.
28 posted on 02/04/2004 1:19:12 PM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infractus2003
The fact is that under the Mass SC's theory, the only relationship not to be state-approved is adult-child, as 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.


29 posted on 02/04/2004 1:19:41 PM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kingu
I got out of Mass. about a year ago.Just an awful state with evil people living there.You get the government you deserve therefore alas Kennedy-Kerry what does that say for the people of Mass.
30 posted on 02/04/2004 1:23:43 PM PST by Antique Gal (Antique Gal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Wrigley
No satirist could possibly top this. These people are so far out of touch with reality, that they do not see the absurdity of their opinion, or the idiocy of the decision.

By much the same rationale, one would have the right to marry a lamp post.

This sort of thing will reduce this age of Americans to the status of a laughing stock for future generations. It is not the way most people would want their times to be remembered, but absurdity in public action always seems to be more memorable than the constructive. (For example, does any one know what productive Romans were doing at the time Caligula made his horse a Senator?)

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

31 posted on 02/04/2004 1:27:05 PM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobjam
The real problem is the legislating by the courts. President Bush should make THAT a campaign issue. This court ruling is only a small piece of a much bigger problem.
32 posted on 02/04/2004 1:27:29 PM PST by BurtS188
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WayneM
“This is a coup by the supreme court.”

Agreed . . . and what political persuasion would these supreme court justices be trying to proliferate?

Liberalism.

They can’t help it. It’s what they believe and who they are.

This article states; “Over the past decade, the Massachusetts’ high court has expanded the legal parameters of family, ruling that same-sex couples can adopt children and devising child visitation right for a former partner of a lesbian.”

‘Incremental liberalism’.

That’s how they enact policy. That’s what they do and who they are.

And today, we have court ordered ‘mainstream gay marriage’.

Straight from the liberal playbook.
33 posted on 02/04/2004 1:28:15 PM PST by BluSky (“Don’t make me come down there.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping!

I just checked in - haven't read the article yet. Horrible jduges. Nazgul.

Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, ping me!
34 posted on 02/04/2004 1:43:48 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wrigley
As outrageous as the Superbowl half-time show was, this is even more outrageous!!!!!!!!!!!!

And we have the Senator from Massachusetts leading the RAT party. Has the Senator spoken about the events of Sunday night's boob-tube?????
35 posted on 02/04/2004 1:51:43 PM PST by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
The question is, what do the people of this state do? This clearly violates the will of both the people and legislature of even this almost hopelessly liberal state. Business as usual? Rely on due process (when the process is broken)? Pitchforks in the streets? Or, nothing?

Does the Spirit of '76 still live?

36 posted on 02/04/2004 1:51:59 PM PST by LTCJ (Gridlock '05 - the Lesser of Three Evils.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Majority Decision and Dissents

May it be hung around John Kerry's Neck for all to see.

37 posted on 02/04/2004 2:11:00 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Wrigley
Tomorrow's Weather Forecast for The People's Republic of Massachusetts:

Dark and Hot with occasional storms of Fire and Brimstone
38 posted on 02/04/2004 7:35:14 PM PST by Dr Warmoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Az Joe
Ah yes, Mass a two sh!ts, the state proud to re-elect Fat Teddy and Barney Buttery Fwanks, the state that believes in taxpayer funding to teach the teens 'fisting' ... yes, would the last conservative out of MA, please turn the light off 'cause the remianders will 'feel' their way along.
39 posted on 02/04/2004 7:39:49 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BluSky
And just down the road is lowering the age of consent to 14 and then to 12 and then to 8.
40 posted on 02/04/2004 10:28:22 PM PST by 3catsanadog (When anything goes, everything does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-43 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson