Posted on 02/04/2004 8:24:28 AM PST by 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.
There are now enough states to pass this due to the fact
they individually have DOMA's.
The FMA will take the Federal Gov. out of the marriage
definition game and put it to state legislatures.
This includes Federally making marriage one man one woman for immigration matters.
These members count the letters of support.
Homosexual special interest groups are trying to organize letter campaigns.
This includes internet and (oddly enough) nightclubs.
This is very doable.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
BELOW IS A FORM LETTER TO SEND TO THE SENATORS AND HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES
RE: Support in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26
Dear [ Decision Maker ]
I support the Federal marriage amendment. As you constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote. As you constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote.
This amendment will remove the courts from redefining the marriage based on social activist judges. This will also protect our state from any actions taken or will be taken in any other state. Private sexual behavior should not be the standard which defines marriage. Marriage is a public institution which is how we raise and support societies children. This institution needs protecting by putting into the Constitution what we have today.
This is not the first time the constitution has been used for social issues. All of the Constitution is based on various social issues. This only codifies what exists now.
This amendment will remove the Federal Government from this issue and return this topic to the individual state legislatures.
Any same sex couple has the legal right to make a private cohabitation agreement, they have the right make powers of attorney and have the right to make health care surrogate directives. These form documents are readily available for nominal cost or free on the internet. Non of these agreements require any special lawyer help. Marriage under the law is one man and one woman. There is no sexual behavior test. Homosexual rantings to the contrary, their opposition is only attempting to impose public acceptance on what should remain a private consensual behavior.
Please support the support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26, amend the Constitution and protect marriage.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]
Table 3. Estimated numbers of diagnoses of AIDS, by year of diagnosis and selected characteristics of persons, 1998–2002— United States
Note. These numbers do not represent actual cases in persons with a diagnosis of AIDS. Rather, these numbers are point estimates of cases diagnosed that have been adjusted for reporting delays and for redistribution of cases in persons initially reported without an identified risk. The estimates have not been adjusted for incomplete reporting. a Includes persons with a diagnosis of AIDS, from the beginning of the epidemic through 2002.
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention Contact Us |
Beats me. Probably as a bone to the conservative base, since he has screwed them so badly lately with his really big government agenda. Personally, I would rather see him focus on issues on which he can play a productive constitutional role -- such as cutting spending and rolling back the size and scope of the federal government.
Owl_Eagle
Guns Before Butter.
Saving it for the campaign trail. After all this is Kerry's home state. This issue is a loser for Dems.
One of the words in your above comment needs to be plural.
The notion that it is an absolutist clause is coming out of the ether that surrounds the penumbra of emanations ~ it's as flexibile as any clause in the Constitution.
That's what I thought
I have no problem with gays, per se, but the things about this issue that bothers me immensely is the SJC's usurpation of the power to legislate, AND this notion that because homosexuals can't "marry" each other legally, they're somehow being discriminated against---and that civil unions isn't a "workable" solution to all this frigging rubbish. Honestly, when all's said and done, who are the freaks that push for this kind of crap? Who stays up all night and dwells over this stuff---that gays can't marry? Isn't one of the "best" things about being gay that nobody expects you to get married---you can go out and tag all you want to and never grow up or old?
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.