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.

[Modernman]

No, my reward is living well. :)

In Rochester? Define "well."

[Modernman]

You are not too sure of too many things, you know?

I don't know about you, but I don't go around asking people about where they might be pierced. In any event, how is body peircing determinative of one's intellect, morals, conservativism etc.?

[Kahonek]

""Some" for straights, is actually "most", and "some" for gays is just that, "some". The gay long-term relationships (for gay men) are also less likely to be monogamous."

Sounds likely from anecdotal evidence, but this study sure didn't show it, and we don't really know the magnitude of the difference or the reason for it.

"Well, you restated what I said (long-term relationships constitute the majority of adult male-female relationships). In 2002, 52% of all people over the age of 15 were married. "

I didn't restate what you said -- I said something else that was more accurate. You could do the same thing by inserting the word "current" into your quote above, between the words "of" and "adult." It's a subtle difference, but a meaningful one. You can get statistics to say anything you want, depending on how you report them (as evidenced by the cited study).

"A woman dates, let's say, 6 different men in the span of time from high school til age 26. Those relationships could be a few dates, or a couple of years courtship. Anyway, guy number six hangs in there, and they get married. They stay married (and eventualy die).
So, duh, she's had more short term relationships than long term."

For purposes of critiquing this study, though, let's say that she's of an average age when the study took place -- perhaps 40. Let's say that her first four relationships lasted 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and a year. Her marriage is 14 years long at the time of the study. That makes her average RELATIONSHIP 2.75 years long, or not so very different from the average relationship of those gay people in the study. This is why it makes no sense to compare "relationships" to "marriages" in such a study. The research on this issue is pretty low quality.

[reg45]

I will never go over Massachusetts airspace, except perhaps to "take a dump".

[visualops]

For purposes of critiquing this study, though, let's say that she's of an average age when the study took place -- perhaps 40. Let's say that her first four relationships lasted 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and a year. Her marriage is 14 years long at the time of the study. That makes her average RELATIONSHIP 2.75 years long, or not so very different from the average relationship of those gay people in the study. This is why it makes no sense to compare "relationships" to "marriages" in such a study. The research on this issue is pretty low quality.

It is absurb to take a few short relationships, and one very long one, and say that compares with a lifetime of short relationships.
Fact is, long term gay relationships are not common, or they'd have no problem providing examples, as the gay community itself would be an example.

[FUMETTI]

"In Rochester? Define "well.""

Define ignorant fatuous asswipe: Modernman :)

[Kahonek]

"It is absurb to take a few short relationships, and one very long one, and say that compares with a lifetime of short relationships."

It is much more absurd to compare two groups of people, selecting only the longest relationships from one, and comparing them to the AVERAGE (combining long and short) relationships of the other, which is what was done in this study comparing straight marriages to gay relationships. My point was not that all gays have long and monogamous relationships. My point was that this is a crappy study.

"Fact is, long term gay relationships are not common, or they'd have no problem providing examples, as the gay community itself would be an example."

They've generally got no problem providing examples (note some of the recent court cases on the topic). There are plenty of long-term gay couples, most of them lesbian (gay men don't seem to fare as well). However, you can't draw a lot of conclusions from mere examples. It sure seems likely that there are fewer long-term monogamous gay couples than straight couples, but you shouldn't use this study to make that point.

[visualops]

You keep talking about some "study", and I have no idea what you are referencing.
The information I am using is from various articles I've read, statistics I've seen, as well as what I know of gays personally.

[visualops]

I'll also reiterate, none of that has anything to do with whether or not gays should be able to get legally married.
That argument is not an "equal rights" or "tolerance" issue. Marriage isn't about "2 people", it's a cornerstone of a moral society. Like it or not, you cannot have moral relativism and attempt to equalize everything, and still have a society and a civilization that leads to the betterment of mankind.
All the rationalizations about how well or not gays are able to maintain relationships is irrelevant.
Note I have no idea what your opinion is on this, but that's part of mine.

[Kahonek]

"You keep talking about some "study", and I have no idea what you are referencing."

Just follow the thread you were commenting on back to when the study was introduced. That was what I was addressing.

[Kahonek]

"I'll also reiterate, none of that has anything to do with whether or not gays should be able to get legally married."

You seem to be attacking a straw man here. You need to go back and read this thread again, starting with post #373, to which you first replied. The study cited there is the one I've been discussing.

[visualops]

You don't comprehend.
You've got tunnelvision over that study.
Post #373 was just a point I entered into the conversation because I wanted to point out something, and add my thoughts, which went well beyond statistics. I had to hit the "reply" button somewhere lol.
Personally I think the discussion of the social and moral pros and cons of gay marriage are far more interesting and relevant than some insufficient study.

From my post #488(my first post):
The other issue is the "equality" argument. The fact that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women does not imply they aren't "equal". A man cannot marry his sister either. Is that not also "unequal"? After all, if they are consenting adults and promise to stay together the rest of their lives, isn't that what counts? When decisions are made based on someone's concept of "fairness" or some sort of general all things are "equal" type of premise, then anything goes.

From my post #534:
The real question though, is how do we see marrige-why do people get married, and why are/should there be benefits to that special relationship. The basic answer, is family. There are legal ties and benefits (and liabilities), because marriage is not just 2 people shacking up for convenience. Marriage is a legal and moral lifetime commitment.


I think if anyone against gay marriage attempts to use statistics or studies to try and prove whatever point, they are going to lose.

[Kahonek]

"I think if anyone against gay marriage attempts to use statistics or studies to try and prove whatever point, they are going to lose."

I think you're right. Sorry to be talking past each other for awhile here.