Posted on 05/21/2004 9:09:47 AM PDT by JesseHousman
BOSTON - Dozens of gay couples rushed to tie the knot at chapels, parks and beaches across Massachusetts on Thursday as the end of the three-day waiting period under state matrimonial law led to a marathon of same-sex weddings.
The Rev. Kim Crawford Harvie had barely retreated down the aisle with her wife of five minutes when she donned her white robes and got back to work at Arlington Street Church, marrying gay couples in assembly-line fashion.
''OK, I'm ready for my next couple!'' said Harvie, 46, who married her partner of seven years, Kem Morehead, at the Unitarian Universalist church. The church in Boston's Back Bay planned to marry nearly 50 couples on Thursday.
Massachusetts law requires a three-day wait between applying for a marriage license and getting married. However, dozens of couples obtained a court waiver of the waiting period and got married promptly after Massachusetts on Monday became the first state to allow same-sex couples to wed.
The new round of nuptials came as Gov. Mitt Romney took the first steps toward blocking town clerks from issuing licenses to out-of-state gay couples, which the Republican governor says is prohibited by state law.
Romney referred the applications of 10 out-of-state couples to Attorney General Tom Reilly. The applications were submitted in either Provincetown or Springfield. Reilly would not say whether he planned to prosecute the couples or the clerks.
Romney said licenses would not be recorded for non-resident gay couples -- an action that a gay rights attorney said could trigger a lawsuit.
''It is an aggressive move that denies the validity of a marriage,'' said attorney Mary Bonauto, who represented seven gay couples in the landmark lawsuit that led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
1. The discussion is in regards to the Commonwealth of Massachussetts, not the US.
2. State governments are free to define things as their State constitutions allow. Unfortunately, a small handful of Massachussetts judges have chosen a definition that mocks a religious sacrament. The term 'civil union' was specifically rejected.
3. The Massachussetts State Constitution granted the Governor the final say on all laws regarding marriage - activist courts in Massachussetts nullified that power of the Governor. So in addition to this being a social issue, its a separation of powers issue - this is a case of activist judges exceeding their authority.
As a country, we certainly do define things in a religious sense (please refer to the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, your calendar, your money, some of your paid holidays, what the standard work week is, etc). It would be highly ignorant and irresponsible of a government that is 'of the People and for the People' to ignore the beliefs of 99% of the People.
I mean, we don't follow biblical justice in the US, do we?
You are setting up a ridiculous straw-man argument. This is not a "biblical argument", since it also applies to religions who follow the Torah and the Koran, as well as the Bible. Nor is this a matter of "justice" - there has never been a restriction on any homosexual from getting married as long as its between one male to one female - the government is not interested in what kind of sex the married person is going to have after the wedding.
No.
Most people are against it.
Nor is this country a simple democracy that is ran by mob rule that bends and twists according to the latest poll. We are a representative republic - and most conservatives will know this.
Nor is this a case of "the will of the people" - it is the will of a small handful of activist judges.
I never said that marriage's primary purpose was that of procreation. Don't put words in my mouth!
I would not agree that allowing same-sex marriage expresses the will of the people. Consider the fact that 38 or 39 states now have what are called Defense of Marriage Acts as law, which define marriage as being limited to male/female couples. Most of these were passed recently. If it were the will of the people that marriage be open to same-sex couples as well, how did all these laws get passed?
It's interesting to note, by the way, that 38 states is the number required to approve a Constitutional amendment.
Our representatives are elected by the public to represent their viewpoint and to express their own. While it is against the Constitution for any particular religion to be "established", all that means is that the government cannot fund or favor one religion over another. It does not mean that neither the people nor their elected representatives should use their own moral judgements and consciences, usually formed at least in part by their religion. Are they then to ignore their own moral sense, or to attempt to separate those parts that were formed by religion from those that are not, and those of their constituents when they make laws?
For that is what they would have to do; and limiting it to the Bible is a false argument. You'd have a hard time finding approval of same-sex marriage in either the Koran or the Vedas, and that pretty much would cover anyone with any kind of religion in the U.S.
doubtful, the avage homosexual relationship lasts only a year, and produces no children of the couple. This means no property to divide. Its all divorce kit work with nothing in it for billable hours.
The real interesting issues is when the divorcing homsexual women have arguments that the sex partner is not a biological mother and thus has no rights. (and/or no obligation for child support) At common law a child of the marriage is presumed to have been fathered by the husband. Since there is no husband there is no father. No father means no child support.
I am against Gay marriage, but I don't know if I this argument works. When my husband and I got married, we both knew there would be no children. So older people, or people who don't intend to have children shouldn't get married?
There's something fundamentally wrong with that statement.
You don't even need to reference God. Society rewards the insititution NOT the individual. Thus since the institution perpetuates society, society perpetuates the institution.
Homosexuals, at law, have always had access to cohabitation agreements between themselves. Have always had the option of producing children via a legal "marriage". The issue is and has always been legal acceptance of their private sexual behavior as "normal".
Next Troy McClure will want to legally marry his fish based on a private sex act he can never speak about.
Some are at the level of state constitutional amendments, but most are simply sub-constitutional legislation. A challenge to those DOMAs or similar wording based on state constitutional grounds (as was the case in Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts) still has a chance of surviving the state court route.
Most of these were passed recently.
Depends on what you mean by recently. Most all were in fairly immediate response to the Hawaiian "compelling reason" case in the early to mid 90's. Acceptance of homosexuality in the entire population has grown since that time, even though there are people as adamantly opposed to it today as they were ten years ago. Even Bill Clinton got a big bunch of Democrats to sign on to the federal DOMA in the mid-90's when he was trying to convince people that he really was a middle of the roader, and not a flaming liberal. I can't imagine too many Democrats coming out that forcefully against gay marriage today.
If it were the will of the people that marriage be open to same-sex couples as well, how did all these laws get passed?
Like I said, Democrat duplicity, a difference in attitudes about homosexuals, a different set of priorities (due to the War on Terror, some things just seem more important now), and the fact that gay marriage didn't really exist 8-10 years ago made it easier to get those DOMA laws passed. Anyone thinking that 38 states is as easy to get today as it was in 1995-96 on this issue is fooling themselves.
Well isnt that interesting. Thanks for the insight.
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.