Mass. Lawmakers Mull Gay Marriage Ruling

MyWay News ^

[Happy2BMe]

Feb 5, 9:10 AM (ET)

By STEVE LeBLANC

(AP) Mary Bonauto, the attorney for the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts gay marriage lawsuit, speaks...
Full Image

 

BOSTON (AP) - Legislators opposed to gay marriage are planning ways to circumvent the ruling by the state's highest court that paves the way for same-sex marriages as early as May.

"The court has overstepped its boundary and has not let the legislative process to unfold the way it has on other issues," said Rep. Eugene O'Flaherty.

The 4-3 advisory ruling Wednesday by the Supreme Judicial Court creates a legislative dilemma that could force many uneasy lawmakers to choose sides on a contentious social issue.

The court Wednesday doused one compromise option, ruling that gay couples were entitled to all the benefits of marriage and that Vermont-style civil unions don't go far enough.

(AP) Julie Goodridge, left, and her partner Hillary, right, who are the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts...
Full Image

But some gay marriage opponents, including powerful House Speaker Thomas Finneran, said they haven't closed the door on other legislative responses.

"I intend to closely study today's advisory opinion," said Finneran. "I will refrain from any comment until I have thought through the options which remain for the people of Massachusetts and their elected representatives."

Opponents of gay marriage pin their hopes on part of the court's original ruling that said state law provided no "rational" basis for prohibiting same-sex couples from the benefits of marriage.

Some lawmakers, including O'Flaherty, hope to craft a bill providing a rational basis for the exclusion of gay couples from marriage while conveying some new benefits to same-sex couples.

The much-anticipated opinion came a week before next Wednesday's Constitutional Convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment backed by Gov. Mitt Romney that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

(AP) Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall delivers the keynote address...
Full Image

"The spotlight is now shining brightly on the Constitutional Convention. I can't believe any lawmaker would want to run from this," said Rep. Philip Travis, who sponsored the amendment.

The soonest a constitutional amendment could end up on the ballot would be 2006, meaning that the nation's first gay marriage could take place in Massachusetts as soon as May.

"We've heard from the court, but not from the people," Romney 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."

Senate President Robert Travaglini, who will preside over the Constitutional Convention, said he needed 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," said Travaglini. "There is a lot of anxiety out there obviously surrounding the issue but I don't want to have it cloud or distort the discussion."

(AP) Ohio Republican state Sen. Jay Hottinger, a member of the Senate Finance Committee and a sponsor of...
Full Image

The advisory opinion was issued about three months after the court's original ruling that same-sex couples were entitled to all the benefits of marriage. That ruling prompted the Senate to ask if civil unions would satisfy the court.

Wednesday's opinion left no doubt.

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," four justices wrote in Wednesday's opinion. "For no rational reason the marriage laws of the Commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain."

Lawmakers who cheered the ruling said they welcomed the chance to stand up and be counted. Sen. Jarrett Barrios, a supporter of gay marriage, said the opinion treats gay and straight couples equally.

"Whatever your view is of marriage, it's my belief that fair-minded people oppose writing discrimination into the constitution," said Barrios, who is gay.

A marriage amendment will require the support of at least 101 members of the 200-member Legislature during the current legislative session and the same number in the new, two-year session that begins in January before going on the ballot.

There's no guarantee the question will even come up next week. The question is eighth on a list of 11 proposed amendments. Ahead of it are other controversial proposals, including one lengthening the term of lawmakers from two to four years.

At least one aspect of the case may still be subject to debate: Would marriages in Massachusetts have to be recognized legally in other states or by the federal government?

The federal government and 38 other states have enacted laws barring the recognition of any gay marriages in other jurisdictions. The Massachusetts court decision will likely lead to multiple lawsuits about whether gay marriage benefits can extend beyond the state's borders.

President Bush, reacting to the court ruling, said a constitutional amendment will be necessary to ban gay marriages if judges persist in approving them. The issue has the potential to become a hot factor in the presidential campaign.

[Happy2BMe]

"How about having the Massachusettes legislature simply impeach the judges who affirmed the ruling as an unwarranted and unconstituitional excercise in legislating from the bench? The court isn't the only insitution that can determine what the state's constitution means. The legislature and governor also have roles."

Right. It's a sure bet the Mass. controllers of Barney Franks, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry (who put these vomit bags into power) will most assuredly now impeach them.

Oh boy . . .

[Happy2BMe]

"For example, if a person married under the laws of Massachusetts were to be in a car accident while driving through Virginia, Virginia should respect the next of kin as determined by that person's domicile. But, if that person takes up residence in another state, the laws of the new state apply."

The measures necessary to accomplish such legislation must occur at the federal leve. Who ever thought the next Constitutional Amendment would be over whether or not a man has the right to be socially and legally recognized for having "married" another man.

Family under attack.

[sr4402]

The Massachusetts legislature should move to amend the Massachusetts constitution.

Sorry, too late. A MA constitution amendment would take effect in 2006. By then dozens of these types of "marriages" would take place and they would fan out across our nation demanding "recognition" in all other states. Similar judges then would overturn those states marriage laws and marital anarchy would prevail.

In an attempt to quell the legal anarchy, the U.S. Supreme court would use the same premise as the MA court and legislate their view onto America.

No, the answer is Impeachment . Call your State Representative and Demand the impeachment of those four judges.

America needs to stand up and say No More!

[Aquinasfan]

There is no longer a middle "civi union" ground to hide upon.

Was there ever? Isn't it "marriage" by another name?

[angkor]

Are you trying to say the Mass gubner and legislature will get the last verdict in the matter?

What I'm reading in the Mass. Constitution is that only the guv and legislature have a verdict in the matter, and that the judiciary has none whatsoever.

[longtermmemmory]

You are correct. However politicians were able to use civil unions to hide behind their finger. If you ever heard Dr. Dean speak, you will hear him basically say that he would make all marraige civil unions.

It is useful for conservatives because it has painted Kerry, Edwards, Clark, and Dean into a corner. The now must state how they will actually vote. No more "personally" opposed BS.

[angkor]

What will be discrimination, assuming the homosexuals get their way, is any restrictions other than age on who gets to be marriage partners.

Why stop at age? It's all relative. /sarcasm

[Happy2BMe]

"Constitution is that only the guv and legislature have a verdict in the matter, and that the judiciary has none whatsoever."

Are Ted Kennedy and Barney Franks involved?

[swarthyguy]

Opens the door to other combos; Triages of various kinds, and, some may call me paranoid, but what's to stop a Muslim man demanding 4 wives, or a gay pakistani wanting.....

[expatpat]

It's time for Legislatures to put the courts back in their place, and regain their pre-eminence in making laws. They should ignore any new law sent down from the courts. It would be ironic and sweet if the first place this happened was Massachusetts!

[jimt]

Why stop at age? It's all relative. /sarcasm

Because most people naturally recoil at children being treated as adults, but lots wouldn't care if some numbskull wanted to "marry" a rock.

Also, because it's a convenient spot to use to pick apart the homosexuals' ridiculous "discrimination" ploy.

[jimt]

Opens the door to other combos;

I agree with you. I maintain it's ANY combo, including fish and fowl. The only reasonable exclusion is children, if this ridiculous ruling stands.

[N. Theknow]

If it comes down to a Constitutional ammendment that marriage should be between a man and a woman, it better have a clause in it that it refers to a genetic man and woman.
Otherwise the lawyers are gonna have a field day defining "Man" and "Woman."

Also the crowd that thinks you can walk into a garden and take an axe to a prickly pear(pair?) and make it a rose bush will have to be taken into account.

[Happy2BMe]

"Also the crowd that thinks you can walk into a garden and take an axe to a prickly pear(pair?) and make it a rose bush will have to be taken into account."

Would be funny if it weren't sooooo sad.

[longtermmemmory]

This is what the left is always about

feeeeeeeeeelings. (hello Rush?!)

Listen to Barney frank or the HRC or any other homosexual group. When two homosexuals feeeeeeeeeeeeel love then they should be married. It is not about standards, it is not about any right or wrong just feeeeeeeeeelings.

Marriage has three requirements

1. Age of consent
2. Not closer related than first cousin
3. One exclusive male one exclusiv female (a breeding pair)

You could add not still married to another but the exclusive takes care of that.

Homosexuasl want to remove all of the above and repace the only criteria with feeeeeeeeeeeelings.

Same leftist liberal cr*p they have been spouting from day 1 of the commie revolution. No profiles at security points because it hurts feeeeeeeeelings. No grades in school because feeeeeeeelings are going to be hurt. No scoring at children's games because feeeeeeelings will be hurt. Words are prohibited because the make people feeeeeeel bad.

If nothing else the lefts is consistently ridiculous.

at least that is how I feeeeeeeeel.

[longtermmemmory]

I am certian the Human rights coalition is planning that next strategy. Back in 1996 when only 15 states had domas, they were shopping for a state to impose marriage via FFC.

The good news is statory construction can be used. As an incorporation of a common law concept. The definition of what is a man and what is a woman will have to be given the broadest protection. This happens sometimes in divorce courts where one of the people has had a sex change. Generally the court treats the gender confused as whatever they were born as.

I am unfamiliar with the various state laws on the subject of sex change and ability to marry. I am aware the many states go by your birth. Birth defects like xxy or xxxy usually do not live that long.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks for the post and ping. This article answers my previous question/comment to you.

Apparently the Legislature asked about Civil Unions and the Lib MassSC came out with their ruling.

The advisory opinion was issued about three months after the court's original ruling that same-sex couples were entitled to all the benefits of marriage. That ruling prompted the Senate to ask if civil unions would satisfy the court.

Wednesday's opinion left no doubt.

[randita]

It will take until 2006 for the MA Constitution to be amended. In the meantime, hundreds, if not thousands of gay couples will be married in MA. Those from DOMA states will go home and challenge their state's laws. This will end up before the SCOTUS before the MA Constitution is amended, I believe.

[dr_lew]

No, the answer is Impeachment .

This was my thought, but can this happen? Is it too late? It really seems so.

On the other hand, I can imagine various forms of mass revolt. This ruling seems like it crossed some kind of line, but did it?

[longtermmemmory]

not if mass suspends the issuance of all marriage licenses.