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.

[BiffWondercat]

Why don't they just not give out ANY marriage licenses?
Just tell people if they want to get married to go next door and do it. Easy quick fix!

[Kahonek]

"Love vs. Virginia ruling in 1967 re: interracial marriage does not say at all that marriage is a RIGHT."

Interesting post. People disagree on this issue. However, I don't think you'll find me arguing that marriage is a right on this thread.

[FUMETTI]

No, the rights are the same. If you are a man you can marry a woman the same as I can.

And marriage is not a RIGHT.

I want to get married but have not found anyone; but hey, it is my RIGHT to get married.

If it was my right, I would have been sent to me UPS a nice Laurie Dhue looking wife and married by now.

So, it is a priveledge with provisions.

Same with driving. I cannot drive without a license. Not everyone can drive, for varying reasons.

Thus, it is not anyone's right to marry who they want, even if it is "cough cough" consentual.

Marriage of an adult and a teen under a certain age is now considered statuatory rape, but if you look at your family tree back enough, there are plenty of men at 30 who married 15 year old girls in 1823 or whathaveyou.

I cannot wait to see gay "family trees": an artificial insemination here, a civil union here. LOL!

[FUMETTI]

Thanks, I totally understand; just posting to anyone to get some views based on today's ruling. I always learn so much from the posters on Free Republic, and this thread is no different.

I am arguing basically that the court is misinterpreting Love vs. Virginia. Anyway, this will bring on such a backlash on gays that Matthew Shepard like attacks will be commonplace. Not threatening this, but it may come to that from this intrusion into heterosexual sanctity.

[FUMETTI]

You are referring to GID: "gender identity disorder."

I know an oline ale friend who many years ago had that disorder; but through therapy he is now married and a father and happily still a man. And he has had this GID since childhood.

Thus, I will always believe that gays as well can change their proclivities.

[Kahonek]

"Anyway, this will bring on such a backlash on gays that Matthew Shepard like attacks will be commonplace. Not threatening this, but it may come to that from this intrusion into heterosexual sanctity."

I realize that you're not making a personal threat here, but two men tying up one guy who's half their size and beating him to death with a pistol butt sounds more associated with sanctimony than sanctity to me.

[Kahonek]

"I know an oline ale friend who many years ago had that disorder; but through therapy he is now married and a father and happily still a man."

That's a heartening story. I would definitely say that this guy had a gender aberration.

[FUMETTI]

Outdated morality?

LOL!

You are the outdated one. Gay sex should have went out with Socrates and the Roman Empire. Even the great historian Edward Gibbons has said that the reason Rome fell was "immorality" and sexual deviance, including homosexuality.

Outdated morality?

You make your own union up. Call it, let's say, "kazam," and not marriage.

That't the ticket, gay kazam! Join the two in matrimony and call it that; marriage is what made YOU possible, dude.

Don't intrude on OUR space.

Do straights ask to march in gay pride parades?

Marriage is for myself and a woman. Besides, any man who is gay when Laurie Dhue, Heather Page and Alyssa Acuna are alive and well is mentally ill, not gay. Who wants to look at a hairy male butt when you have Victoria Secret models? Get a life!

[Kahonek]

"I'd imagine many of them will be psychologically scarred at some level and may never end up married, which is OK - they should consider priesthood. Some may be drawn to homosexuality, which is not OK."

Thanks for thinking about this. It's a complex issue without an obvious solution, and with no clear dichotomy. Myself, I don't think that psychological scarring makes one a particularly good candidate for the priesthood, but people disagree...

[tuesday afternoon]

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

Yup.

And you know this because you read it in the newspaper? Any links to articles?

...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...

Those are two different cases: a woman - genetically a man - wants to marry a man vs. a woman - genetically a man - who wants to marry another woman.

According to your example, the latter would be legal, not the former.

[FUMETTI]

Shepard was the one who approached them; if he flirted in a gay bar he would have never been attacked. If I went to a gay bar and hit on a lesbian, do you think I would not be physically attacked???? Guess again. These dykes on bikes are nasty people.

Not rationalizing murder, but whether you like it or not; straight men have been murdered and mutilated by homosexuals (John Wayne Gacy, Juan Carona), so this is not just big bad heteros targeting gays.

There will be a backlash, believe me. People will think this is the final straw. Most Americans vehemently oppose this.

[KQQL]

Will Kerry attend REp Barney Franks wedding in May?

[Kahonek]

"And you know this because you read it in the newspaper?"

I did.

"Any links to articles?"

Not right offhand. You can probably find a similar news story pretty easily with a search, though. It's what happens when you restrict yourself to a genetic definition.

"According to your example, the latter would be legal, not the former."

I'm sorry that I wasn't very clear. There are certainly XY people out there who lack male genitalia and believe themselves to be female -- until they have testing for some reason. I was hypothesizing that your "daughter" turned out to be one of those after falling in love with a man. You would, after all, have raised "her" in a manner consistent with "her" external genitalia. However, that marriage would be illegal in some (though not all) states.

[BobbyBeeper]

Polling shows 2/3 of all Americans do NOT support same-sex marriages. Kerry voted AGAINST the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and supports FORCING states to accept homosexual "marriages" from other states! President Bush is on the record when it comes to defending traditional marriage. He's with the American people. The GOP will go after this like a dog with a moose thighbone. This issue ALONE could doom Kerry, IMHO.

I kept waiting for someone on the news to bring up this point. I can't believe it took 60 posts on FR before someone figured it out.

Gay marriage will be a reality in Mass. in May. That means in 15 other states (those that don't have laws defining marriage) it also becomes a reality in may. Gay couples will immediatly start challenging the federal defense of marriage act, and state laws that define marriage.

By late summer, there will be a number of high profile court cases across the country concerining gay marriage.

Gay marriage (of all things) will be the big issue in the 2004 elections. Not the war or economy.

This ruling in Mass. will be remembered as being as big as Roe vs. Wade.

[Kahonek]

"Shepard was the one who approached them"

Okay. Still sounds more like sanctimony than sanctity to me. Gotta go. Been nice meeting you...

[Kahonek]

"they can certainly become monks however while they and others consider the question."

They could. Well, been nice to meet you. I have to take off now...