Same sex couples receive marriage applications in Massachusetts

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Sunday, May 16, 2004 | KEN MAGUIRE

[Cracker72]

(05-16) 21:43 PDT CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) --

City clerks began handing out marriage-license applications to gay couples just after midnight Monday, making Massachusetts the first state in the nation to legalize same-sex unions and the United States just one of four countries in the world where homosexuals can legally wed.

The first couple to begin filling out the paperwork was Marcia Hams, 56, and her partner, Susan Shepherd, 52, of Cambridge. They showed up a full 24 hours ahead of time to stake out the first spot in line to get the nation's first state-sanctioned gay marriage applications.

"I'm shaking so much," Hams said as she filled out the application while sitting at a table across from a city official. "I could collapse at this point."

Outside, throughout the day and into the night, the atmosphere was festive -- complete with a giant wedding cake -- as officials in the liberal bastion of Cambridge seized the earliest possible moment to begin the process of granting same-sex couples the historic right at the center of legal battles nationwide.

By late Sunday night, police estimated that more than 5,000 people had descended outside city hall, cheering and clapping as it opened its doors to let more than 260 couples inside just ahead of the midnight deadline. Many in the crowd were family and friends who wanted to join in the festive atmosphere. There were also scores of reporters, and a few protesters stood across the street.

The state's highest court had ruled gays and lesbians must be allowed to marry beginning Monday, and some of the couples in line planned to head to the courts as soon as they opened later in the morning to seek waivers allowing them to wed before the usual three-day waiting period.

Massachusetts was thrust into the center of a nationwide debate on gay marriage when the state's Supreme Judicial Court issued its narrow 4-3 ruling in November that gays and lesbians had a right under the state constitution to wed.

In the days leading up to Monday's deadline, opponents looked to the federal courts for help in overturning the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene.

[Dimensio]

Do you consider marriage to be a civil right?

That's a good question. I'll have to give it some thought. The US Supreme Court ruled, in Loving v. Virginia, that marriage is a "fundamental right", but I'll still need to consider the issue.

If so, other than for being convicted of a felony, under what conditions is it okay to deny an American citizen a civil right?

"Compelling state interest" often works, the same thing used to justify restrictions on "free speech" to prohibit threats and inciting a riot. Of course, you then have to get into what constitutes a "compelling state interest".

[Dimensio]

Well, either that or kidnapping Rupert Murdoch and torturing him until he agrees to an extension.

Not sure that Murdoch can be blamed for anything apart from Fox not picking up the show, and given how the Fox network treated Firefly and how Fox studios has treated any move where Joss had a hand in the script, I doubt that would have been the best solution.

But that's another issue, I think. One that involves less heated emotions. Except those directed toward the pinheads at Warner Brothers.

[ohioman]

It doesn't diminish me one bit. They deserve no respect and that's exactly what they'll get.

[Antoninus]

Homo "marriage" is not the cause of societal sickness, it is merely a symptom.

Society, particularly here in the northeast, is sick and getting sicker. We picked up a nasty little venereal disease in the 1960s. Instead of looking for a cure or trying to treat the bug so it doesn't get worse, we're just choosing to try to live with the symptoms as best we can. Trouble is, the symptoms are getting harder and harder to live with--adultery, divorce, broken homes, gay "marriage," STDs, abortion, pedophila, pubic pornography, sexual predators, etc.

Any doctor will tell you that this is a recipie for disaster. One way or another, there will be a reckoning for all this.

[Antoninus]

What do you mean by "biologically natural"? It occurs within biological life forms in nature, therefore it is natural. Or are you using a different definition of "natural" than the commonly accepted one?

So does cr@pping on a public sidewalk and eating your own vomit, but I certainly wouldn't argue that doing such things is "natural" for a human being.

[dmanLA]

USA, a nation in decline....

We will reap what we sow....that's a promise.

[Choose Ye This Day]

You can argue against homosexuality without spouting off terms like "f*ggots". It makes us look like a bunch of backwards idiots.

I'll second the motion. I don't remember reading the word "f*ggot" in the Bible, anyway.

[FormerLib]

Gentlemen, the time has come for action. We've got to corner the KY market in Massachusetts!

[MineralMan]

"Murder, rape, theft, incest, promiscuity, nudity, cannibalism...all occur within biological life forms in nature also."

Nudity? I think I'd take that off the list. I don't know anyone who was born in a three-piece suit.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Exactly my point. Why is it illegal? It is certainly more natural than gay sex. The only reason is that it offends the moral sense of the public. That's it.

[MineralMan]

"This occurs precisely nowhere in the animal kingdom that I know of."

Actually, it does. But I don't have to dig up a lot of situations where it occurs. Humans are animals, specifically mammals. Homosexuality occurs in humans. The case is made.

[MineralMan]

"Exactly my point. Why is it illegal? It is certainly more natural than gay sex. The only reason is that it offends the moral sense of the public. That's it."

Nudity, per se, is not illegal at all. It is illegal in most public places, but not all. There's a legal nude beach just a few miles from where I live. You may freely go naked in your home.

Nudity is simply not illegal.

[Dimensio]

So does cr@pping on a public sidewalk and eating your own vomit, but I certainly wouldn't argue that doing such things is "natural" for a human being.

It is natural. It's certainly neither normal nor acceptable, but it is still natural -- unless you use a different definition of "natural" than the one that I use.

A personal relationship with Jesus Christ is not "natural", as it involves elements that are not part of the natural universe, but that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with such a relationship. Natural is not a synonym for "good", it's merely a descriptor for events within the universe, and it has been horribly misused as an excuse to apply labels of morality and immorality. Whether a thing is natural has no bearing on whether or not it is acceptable or desirable.

[Dimensio]

It should also be noted -- for purposes of completing the attempted analogy -- that homosexual sex (as well as heterosexual sex) in most (if not all) public places is also illegal. And I'm certainly not going to argue for changing that.

[CurlyBill]

What do you mean by "biologically natural"? It occurs within biological life forms in nature, therefore it is natural. Or are you using a different definition of "natural" than the commonly accepted one?

Ever take an anatomy class? It's all built for the creation of a child, both biologically and chemically.
I wasn't actually referring to Utah. You are aware that the early Mormons weren't the only group to practice polygamous marriage, aren't you?

I'm well aware of that, but where is it LEGAL?
Do you want me to dig up some more? The vast majority of the links were about various gay organizations or individuals and why they don't like being associated with NAMBLA.

While I agree there has been some pushback, it has been a recent phenomenon that was probably done because of the negative PR they were getting. While you may dig up some individual accounts, I don't believe the condemnation has been as widespread as you would have us believe.
I've already explained the problem with going from an arrangement between two consenting parties and more than two consenting parties: it requires completely redefining the nature of the rights, benefits and obligations granted.

Well, you are already advocating a redefinition of marriage.
Okay. You obviously think that those things are "wrong". To make things simple, I'll just ask for one explanation. Pick one out of the list -- I think that pedophilia or beastiality might be the easiest topics -- and explain what you think is "wrong" about them. Note that I do not assert than any of the above are "right" or valid in any way. I just want to hear your personal reasons for condemning them.

This opens up a whole can of worms ... and I would hope that we would agree that they are wrong. The point here is that as crazy and off the wall as these sound ... it was not that long ago that the thought of same-sex marriage was just as crazy and off the wall.
Marriage was created as an instutution between a man and a woman. Nobody is saying that two people can't live together.... for me, it's a matter of hijacking that institution. You may not advocate group marriages, but there are those who do, and this will open the door for them too.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Then go to the store in the buff and see if you don't get arrested. And why will you be arrested? Because public nudity is illegal. Why? Because it offends the moral sense of the people. That's the only reason.

My point is first that gay sex is not natural. Second, even if you define it as natural, it is not moral and that is reason enough to deny public recognition of it. Third, there are some laws civil society has solely because they offend the moral sense of citizens. Nudity laws, for example. If "I want to" is the only basis for legal recognition, if "liberty" demands we accept everything, then we have a whole ton of laws that need overturning in the name of liberty.

[Dimensio]

My point is first that gay sex is not natural.

Natural means occuring in nature. If gay sex occurs in nature (and humans are part of nature), then it is natural.

Second, even if you define it as natural, it is not moral

Why not?

and that is reason enough to deny public recognition of it.

Deny "public recognition"? I take it then that you never supported sodomy laws? After all, if you're not "recognizing" gay sex, you can't charge someone with a crime for engaging in it.

[homemom]

Four couples in NE (that's Nebraska, not the northeast!) :-) TRIED to apply today, but were denied. I, personally, will raise hell to prevent it, and I hope to God there are enough conservatives in NE who care enough to do the same.

How long is God going to be patient with these people openly mocking His word?

[homemom]

***When people talk about chaos, they aren't talking about a sudden explosion. They are talking about over decades and generations.***

Excellent comment!

[homemom]

*** My prayers go out for the poor children who have to live in this unnatural environment.***

YES! They have NO example of what marriage and family should be.

There is a world of difference between being without a parent by chance (through death, or divorce because of abuse or addictions) and FORCING the child to grow up in a home either WITHOUT a dad or WITHOUT a mom.