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.

[jwalsh07]

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

A resounding NO! The courts tried their flavor of judicial tyranny in Hawaii and were brought to task by a constitutional amendment at the behest of the common folk, that's us.

[Kahonek]

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

You might want to find out. States differ. If yours does it by birth certificate, it most likely uses external genitalia to decide. Mine does it by genes -- Ticked off a couple of legislators royally when a normal woman and a transgender married recently, but it was all perfectly legal.

Meanwhile, did you know that the gender on birth certificates can be changed? Muddies up that neat dichotomy a bit for you, no?

What do you think the basis SHOULD be, if it's such a neat dichotomy?

[oldironsides]

The Bay State just had a name change

[puroresu]

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


No. Hawaii was the first state targeted by gay activists in their quest to use the courts to impose gay marriage on the nation. Hawaii has a very liberal and aggressive state supreme court, and it ordered gay marriage to be legalized there. But the gambit failed because the voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment to specifically ban gay marriage.

They then tried the same thing in Alaska, another state with an aggressive leftist court, but the voters did the same thing as in Hawaii and amended the state constitution.

Massachusetts is the latest state where the gambit has been tried. In this case, the ruling was timed so as to make it impossible for the voters to amend the constitution in time to stop gay marriage licenses from being issued. There is also the possibility there that a few members of the legislature will prevent the issue from going before the voters at all.

The goal is to judicially engineer gay marriage in one state, and then use the full faith & credit clause of the U.S. Constitution to force the other 49 states to comply. So far the gambit has been blocked in Hawaii and Alaska, but in Massachusetts the court and a few politicians have tried to rig things so as to make popular opposition to the ruling impossible.

[tuesday afternoon]

Mine does it by genes -- Ticked off a couple of legislators royally when a normal woman and a transgender married recently, but it was all perfectly legal.

Are you saying the transgender was a woman who was genetically a man?

Meanwhile, did you know that the gender on birth certificates can be changed? Muddies up that neat dichotomy a bit for you, no?

You mean if someone changes there external genitalia they can change their sex on their birth certificate?

What do you think the basis SHOULD be, if it's such a neat dichotomy?

I would guess genetic aberrations of gender (which, by definition, does not count people who believe their gender is wrong) are statistically insignificant.

[Tabi Katz]

Such an intolerant court, limiting marriage to two people! Why can't it go further and sanction group marriage? If a bunch of folks at an orgy want to go to city hall as a group and marry, who are the courts to tell them they can't? The same goes for two sisters who want to marry, or a man and his pet alligator. Why must marriage, after all, be restricted to humans? Sheesh, how narrow-minded!

[scripter]

The article Prominent Psychiatrist Announces New Study Results: "Some Gays Can Change" might provide a lead.

Thanks for posting the link. Spitzer's comments are very interesting in that he changed his mind from believing homosexuals could not change to where they could change. Spitzer also believes:

"the mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in sexual orientation. Many patients, provided with informed consent about the possibility that they will be disappointed if the therapy does not succeed, can make a rational choice to work toward developing their heterosexual potential and minimizing their unwanted homosexual attractions."

That's quite a change of opinion, especially since Spitzer played a pivotal role in the 1973 APA decision to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. If only the major media figures would report this information...

[FUMETTI]

It is not human rights. Gays have the same marriage rights as straights. Gay men can marry a woman like straight men can marry a woman. There is no discrimination; thus this is no victory except for the coarsening of America.

And this will not advance gay rights. This will bring such outrage and venom that gays may fear attacks on them because they invaded one of the most sacred of sacraments and structures in society.

You are a fool.

[Kahonek]

"IMO, natural external genitalia, so that XY's who do not generate male organs during gestation will be classified as female. Every natural hermaphrodite should be assigned a state-funded lawyer from birth: it would be cheaper than making a statutory accomodation."

Interesting answer. Would you change someone's sex classification if, as happens in dihydrotestosterone-deficient males, their external genitalia changes at puberty? What if they didn't want to change it?

[FUMETTI]

Re: troll i_love_the_weather, I think that guy is not moving forward in gay rights, but doing everything to the back, if you know what I mean.

[vaudine]

This ought to give a lot of Americans pause before voting for a Mass. liberal for President.

Willl someone tell me how a court can mandate a cultural change of this magnitude over the will of so many people? It was certainly not thought of as a possibility by the framers of either the US or Mass constitution.

vaudine

[oyez]

Hopefully, Massachusetts voters will for once, wake up. Meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath.

[Kahonek]

"Are you saying the transgender was a woman who was genetically a man?"

Yup.

"You mean if someone changes there external genitalia they can change their sex on their birth certificate?"

Yup, or if it changes on its own...

"I would guess genetic aberrations of gender (which, by definition, does not count people who believe their gender is wrong) are statistically insignificant."

First, I think you should probably use the term "biological sex" here to avoid confusion. I think that someone who believes his or her gender is wrong definitely has an aberration of gender.

Second, I doubt you would see it as insignificant if it were your daughter's/son's life impacted -- that your daughter found out that she couldn't marry the man she loved because she turned out to be a man, herself. It happens...

[FUMETTI]

Nice try: the Love vs. Virginia ruling in 1967 re: interracial marriage does not say at all that marriage is a RIGHT. It is a privledge like driving. Some felons cannot get married in prison. Mental patients cannot get married except in extreme conditions.

Here is a point to show marriage is not a RIGHT....

I wanted to get married at 25 but now I am 35 and still have not found anyone that I want to spend the rest of my life with, despite trying hard.

"Hey but it is MY RIGHT to get married...where is my woman? Bring her here so I can down on my knee and propose, dammit!"

RIGHT!

That makes no sense, huh?

It is up to a woman to agree to the marriage; thus it is not a right to marry, but a distinct priveledge with conditions.

[petercooper]

This is BS!

[petercooper]

This is BS!

[Tribune7]

We are going to have start electing legislators who pointedly start ignoring courts. The ugly truth is that the Mass. legislature has every right and power to ignore this.