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.

[Kahonek]

"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."

Just curious -- would you argue for the fairness of miscegenation laws on the same basis? At one time, it was pretty common that anyone had the right to marry another person of his or her own race, just not anyone of another race. Sound like a good system to you?

[Guillermo]

No, that's not a good system.

The very essence, the definiton of marriage, is between man and woman.

Homosexual "marriage" is the ultimate oxymoron.

Special rights for people based *solely* on where they choose to put their penis is a bad idea.

[Kahonek]

"You were replying to the question of how gay people are being denied rights held by straight people. Straight people do not have the right to assign survivor benefits to people to whom they are not married, or to bring people to whom they are not married into this country, or (sadly) to pass property before or after death to people to whom they are not related."

Your case is, of course, logically tight if you couch it in the heterocentric terminology of the law. I made my suggestions when it appeared you were approaching things from a broader perspective in your replies to I_love_weather. Now that I know that you're not, what are your views on miscegenation laws? Pretty darn fair?

[kennedy]

Sorry, but that is a terrible analogy. Your hypothetical would be analogous to the legislature voting to recognize same sex marriage and a court holding that they could not do so.

If any two or more people want to consider themselves married, I have no problem with that. Hell, if 2 men and 3 women want to all sleep together and call themselves a group marriage, I don't care. It is none of my business what any two or more people want to do in bed together unless I am one of them.

The problem I have is with a few ultra liberal judicial activists attempting to force society to accept an alternate relationship as a legal marriage with all of the rights thereof. The only reason for governmental recognition and preferential treatment of marriage is the societal interest in promoting two parent households. As the liberals would say, it's for the children.

It is an indisputable fact that children raised in single parent households are far more likely to live in poverty and far more likely to end up in jail. Children are much better off being raised by a mother and a father (one of each, not two of one and none of the other). Society therefore has an interest in encouraging heterosexual marriage. Society has no interest in encouraging homosexual marriage.

[Kahonek]

"No, that's not a good system."

But why not? It's equally fair to everyone. You can't say you're discriminating against anyone with anti-miscegenation laws...

[TonyM]

Our only hope to stop this insanity is to reelect Bush and and get a supermajority in the Senate. Remember that in November. Or remember it now and contribute to the Rebublican party.

[Kahonek]

"No law whatsoever should ever presume the existence of race, a false metaphysical concept. But the concept of "sexual orientation" is equally false and metaphysical."

Anyone with a biology background will tell you that sex and gender are on pretty shaky grounds as clear dichotomies, too. How does your state law define who's a woman and who's a man?

[Kahonek]

I like your vocabulary. However, I'm certainly no stranger to FR.

[Kahonek]

I like your vocabulary. However, I'm certainly no stranger to FR.

[I_love_weather]

Sorry we are not talking about your girlfriend...

We were talking about your WIFE

So I am correct...the rights do differ.

[jwalsh07]

Anyone with a biology background will tell you that sex and gender are on pretty shaky grounds as clear dichotomies, too.

No kidding? Sheesh, you learn something new every day.

[Kahonek]

"Sorry, but gender is on perfectly solid ground."

Actually, gender is on much less solid ground than sex. Incidentally, you neglected to mention how your state defines a male.

[tuesday afternoon]

Sorry, but gender is on perfectly solid ground.

Bump.

[tuesday afternoon]

Actually, gender is on much less solid ground than sex.

Sounds like you are reading politically-correct studies on gender identity.

Incidentally, you neglected to mention how your state defines a male.

I wouldn't know, other than birth certificate. How does yours define it?

[Kahonek]

"Right, the one or two not-yet-discounted studies about sheep have destroyed thousands of years of understanding about sexuality."

No one said anything about sheep or cloning.

"The "gay gene" wasn't disproven from 1994-1996, so therefore it must still be out there ready to be found."

I was talking about sex and gender, not sexual orientation. As you correctly pointed out, the law deals with gender, not sexual orientation. You have already established that sexual orientation is not dichotomous, a point I'll readily concede.

"20 skulls of AIDS victims examined by a gay man should be enough for all 300 million of us."

Again, I'm not sure why you're bringing LeVay into this...

[Democratshavenobrains]

Hasn't gay marraige been legal in Hawaii for awhile?