Mass. High Court Rules for Gay Marriage

Associated Press Writer ^ | Wed, Feb 04, 2004 | JENNIFER PETER

[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.

[tuesday afternoon]

Anyone know where to find the dissenting Mass SJC opinions to Goodrich?

[Kahonek]

"What I took from Dr. Spitzer's remarks is that one's personal motivation is key to any reparative therapy. To me, that puts SSA in the category of a neurosis which responds to personal intent, not a psychosis, which responds to meds. JMO"

Your opinion sounds very well thought out. This forum needs more people like you.

[Guillermo]

Please name a *single* "right" that heterosexuals have that homosexuals do not.

I dare you.

[I_love_weather]

Quote "Do you not think that the majority of the people should have a say before one of their multi-thousand year old institutions is altered by four appointed officials, with the subsequent societal ramifications that would entail?
"

Sure do...

We have done it many many times...

Women can vote today...
Blacks are free...
Blacks can vote

:) We have upset the cart time after time after time

Try again...

[I_love_weather]

Quote "Please name a *single* "right" that heterosexuals have that homosexuals do not"

Well right not straight people can get married...

Is that a right? Well you can argue that it is not...but who are you fooling?

Not me...

heh...of millions of other people.

Of course straight people have more rights than gay people.

Right now a gay persons partner can not even legally see them in the hospital.

That is a family right...

I can name hundreds...

Try again on that arguement...bad choice.

[oyez]

From the Land of Kennedy, Kerry and Frank.

[jde1953]

"The judges simply decided that they personally favored gay marriage, perverted the actual meaning of the state constitution, and then imposed their belief on the people of Massachusetts for no better reason than an arrogant confidence that they could get away with it."

Well, I haven't read the decision in full, so I'll take your word for it that that is exactly how the decision reads. [grin]

"A better analogy to the Massachusetts gay marriage decision would be one in which the justices personally believe that handguns are dangerous, so they order the legislature to ban them despite having no constitutional authority to do so. They then announce that if the legislature fails to comply, they'll start ordering local police to confiscate people's guns without legislative authority."

But this case didn't happen in a vacuum; the judges didn't wake up one morning and say, "Hey, let's change the marriage laws!" As I understand it: a case was brought, the decision was that the current situation was unconstitutional. In fact, the judges _did_ turn the question over to the legislature, telling them, "please bring the law in line with the constitution." The current ruling is on the proposed law, which is still not in line with the constitution of Massachusetts.

[I_love_weather]

Why should they have to go to a lawyer to get the right to visit their partner in the hospital?

You miss the whole point...

[Kahonek]

"At most, a same-sex couple will need to draw up kinship papers. It might cost them a few $hundreds at the lawyer's, just like any non-family kinship assignment would, or there are also do-it-yourself packets."

Three that I've heard that can't be accomplished by a smart lawyer are:

1. The right to pass property (either before or after death) to a partner without significant tax liabilities.

2. The right to Social Security survivorship benefits.

3. The right to sponsor immigration for a partner from another country.

[puroresu]

#####Women can vote today...
Blacks are free...
Blacks can vote#####

Last time I checked, those three things were accomplished via constitutional amendments, which required ratification by super-majorities of legislative bodies elected by the voters.

So your assignment is to accomplish the same thing with gay marriage and amend the constitution to mandate it before expecting the courts to order it.

[tuesday afternoon]

Thanks.

[Guillermo]

Any homosexual male may marry any willing, single female.

As I, a heterosexual male, may not marry another male, our rights do not differ a whit.

If a homosexual male doesn't have the "right" to see his "partner" in a hospital, I don't have the "right" to see my girlfriend in the hospital. Again, no difference.


You tried twice, try again.

[Kahonek]

"Why on earth should same-sex pairs be entitled to any of those rights?"

They aren't. That was my point, I think.

[puroresu]

#####But this case didn't happen in a vacuum; the judges didn't wake up one morning and say, "Hey, let's change the marriage laws!" As I understand it: a case was brought, the decision was that the current situation was unconstitutional. In fact, the judges _did_ turn the question over to the legislature, telling them, "please bring the law in line with the constitution." The current ruling is on the proposed law, which is still not in line with the constitution of Massachusetts.#####


The case was brought in Massachusetts because the gay activists knew the court there was politically-driven enough to order gay marriage.

Do you seriously wish to maintain that the Massachusetts constitution has **EVER** been amended to require the legislature to sanction gay marriage? If so, when was that provision ratified, and why were those who ratified it unaware of it at the time?

Actual constitutional provisions must be ratified. For example, the 19th amendment prohibits states from denying the vote based on sex. That issue was debated forcefully, and after a pitched political battle that lasted decades, the amendment in question was approved by the requisite super-majorities in Congress and the states.

There appears to be no record of a "right to gay marriage" amendment being added to the Massachusetts state constitution. Surely such a thing would have been controversial, and would have engendered enormously heated debate on its way to ratification. Yet, there's no record of that happening.

What we have is an activist court with four judges who personally favor gay marriage, and who twisted some vague and or non-existent passages in the state constitution to mean something they were never intended to mean. A multi-thousand year old institution such as marriage should not be altered by a minority of four on the basis of such arrogance.