Posted on 05/18/2004 6:41:41 AM PDT by JesseHousman
MASSACHUSETTS
Hundreds of gay couples exchanged vows in Massachusetts, which became the first state to let same-sex couples marry. Despite the joy, legal uncertainty remains.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - More than 600 gay couples rushed to town halls and courthouses across Massachusetts on Monday to exchange vows and be pronounced 'partners for life.' They emerged to cheering crowds, live bands and rice-throwing relatives as the state became the first in the nation to allow same-sex marriages.
Along with the party atmosphere came moments of somber reflection and deep emotion as the day marked two sorts of milestones: the leaping of a long-unthinkable barrier in American culture and the passage of a long-awaited turning point in many lives.
It was a day in which stereotypes were not only broken but turned inside out, in which liberal lesbians expressed unstinting patriotism and conservative clergy members denounced the nation's moral and political trajectory. The United States is now one of a handful of countries -- along with Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada -- to give some gay marriages the full protection of law.
The first to wed were Tanya McCloskey, 52, and Marcia Kadish, 56, of Malden, who said they had not sought the limelight but merely wanted to get the ceremony over with so they could enjoy the rest of the day. ''I now pronounce that you are married under the laws of Massachusetts,'' Cambridge City Clerk Margaret Drury declared at 9:10 a.m. ''You may seal this marriage with a kiss.'' The newlyweds embraced, and Kadish jumped up and down. ''Thank you. Thank you,'' she said.
''What a way to celebrate the freedoms we have in this country,'' McCloskey said.
``This country is fabulous. I'm just so proud to be a citizen of the United States of America.''
But while those on both sides of an issue that has divided the nation acknowledged the historic nature of the ceremonies here Monday, many questions about the future of same-sex marriage remain.
A federal appeals court will consider a request to stop the marriages in June, while a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage could go to a referendum in November 2006.
President Bush seized the occasion to renew his call for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
And a small but vocal number of protesters in Massachusetts gave notice that their fight against the state court decision that legalized same-sex marriage here was just beginning.
Across the state, gay couples lined up -- some as early as Saturday -- outside municipal clerks' offices to register their intention to marry.
Some also dashed to court to obtain waivers of the usual three-day waiting period for a marriage license. Waivers in hand, they then went to justices of the peace to get married. Provincetown and Worcester reported the most same-sex weddings -- about 30 each -- while Cambridge had 22.
Across the state, cheering crowds serenaded and saluted gay couples leaving courthouses. Police estimated that nearly 10,000 revelers thronged Cambridge City Hall on Sunday night, when officials in tuxedos began taking application forms at midnight and the crowd, accompanied by a brass band, alternated between singing God Bless America and Chapel of Love.
In Provincetown, a woman blew on a conch shell and a man in a white pink slip dress burst into song after the town clerk announced the last couple of the day to file their intention to marry.
In Boston, a string quartet played Monday morning for a crowd of a few hundred well-wishers on the red-brick plaza in front of City Hall. A hundred yards away, about 30 protesters called for the state legislature to remove the Supreme Judicial Court judges who ruled in November that the state could not deny the legal protections of marriage to same-sex couples and gave the legislature 180 days to change state law to comply.
''Where is the president of the United States and where are our religious leaders?'' Yehuda Levin, an Orthodox rabbi from Brooklyn, asked the demonstrators. ``There should be 1,000 religious leaders standing here today.''
Bush said the ''sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges.'' His presumptive Democratic opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry, steered clear of the same-sex marriage debate on a day when he was commemorating the 1954 Supreme Court civil rights ruling that desegregated the nation's schools.
Kerry opposes gay marriage but also opposes Bush's proposal for a constitutional amendment. He has said he supports civil unions and domestic partnership benefits.
By the end of the day, all seven gay couples involved in the Massachusetts court case had tied the knot.
The lead plaintiffs, Julie and Hillary Goodridge, were married by the Rev. William G. Sinkford, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, at the association's headquarters on Beacon Hill. ''Here comes the bride, all gay with pride,'' about 100 friends and family members sang as the Goodridges walked down the aisle in Giorgio Armani pantsuits, preceded by their 8-year-old daughter as flower girl.
Was fabulous.
"The United States is now one of a handful of countries -- along with Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada -- to give some gay marriages the full protection of law."
Massasses-chews-it is not the United States.
From a personal view, I disagree with marriage other than a man and a woman. This is what evolution is based upon, and this is what keeps civilization going. If you want to be homosexual, do it, but you can not marry. Marriage is derived from God, our creator, now they want to disown God, but use the state as evidence of some type of marriage sham.
The people should of been asked to vote on this. Not a judge, she, or any judge for that matter, is their to enforce and interpet the law, not create it. That is why we have 3 branches of goverment. Some may agree with here doing this, but wait until they make their own law again, but this time you are against it. And it may impact you more than ever. This has set a dangerous precident.
If they want equal rights, they have them, man marries a woman. I wonder how many heterosexuals would have the town office opened for them on midnight so they could get married??? NONE.
I wonder if the heterosexual couple would have a cake waiting for them courtesy of the state?? NO.
I wonder if the city clerk would be there to file and perform the ceremony at midnight for the heterosexual couple?? NO.
I wonder how many hetersexual couples could gather at midnight outside a public building making noise without being asked to vacate the premesis??NO.
And how many heterosexual couples would be granted a waiver on the blood test and 3 day waiting period? NO.
Equal rights, not anymore. Heterosexuals are soon becoming a minority voice even though we make up 96% of the population.
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.