LOL ! What a pic!
Posted on 05/16/2004 10:00:06 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
”Guns Before Butter.”
LOL ! What a pic!
Head on up,I'll set up a tent in my yard for you.
As for me,I'm not leaving the damn house today.
Today is their day to gloat and to make fun of those who believe morality is an essential element to liberty. God will judge them. May their personal lives be overcome with the tragic results of this day, and may God spare the innocent.
People like you are the reason I don't recommend FR to everyone I know.
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues" |
Gay couples begin marrying in Massachusetts08:49 AM CDT on Monday, May 17, 2004
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - Gay couples began exchanging vows here Monday, marking the first time a state has granted gays and lesbians the right to marry and making the United States one of four countries where homosexuals can legally wed.
Tanya McCloskey, 52 and Marcia Kadish, 56, of Malden, went at a breakneck pace to fill out paperwork, get a waiver from the usual three-day waiting period, then return to city hall -- where they got their marriage license and exchanged vows.
At 9:15 a.m., Cambridge City Clerk Margaret Drury told the couple: "I now pronounce you married under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."
It was among the first -- if not the first -- same-sex weddings anticipated to take place throughout the state on Monday, the day that under a court order same-sex couples could wed.
"It was really important to us to just be married. We want to be married as soon as we possibly can. Part of it is, we don't know what the Legislature is going to do," McCloskey said.
At the stroke of midnight, Cambridge officials threw open its doors to couples wishing to fill out marriage license applications. Within hours, judges began issuing waivers to the usual three-day waiting period.
Among those with wedding plans were the seven couples who brought the lawsuit that eventually led the state's highest court to declare gay marriage legal, breaking a barrier many never believed would fall and putting the United States among four countries where gays can marry.
The moves came against the backdrop of scattered protests but a largely festive party atmosphere.
"I'm proud of this state," said John Meuneir, 43, of Boston, who arrived at City Hall in Boston with his partner, Jim Flanagan, 42, more than two hours before the scheduled 8 a.m opening.
In Cambridge, more than 260 couples filled out application forms for marriage licenses in the wee hours. A throng that police estimated was more than 5,000 people converged on city hall, including some heterosexuals there to witness history in the making.
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 for same-sex weddings to begin, 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.
The SJC's ruling touched off a frenzy of gay-marriages across the country earlier this year, emboldening officials in San Francisco, upstate New York, and Portland, Ore., to issue marriage licenses as acts of civil disobedience. Even though courts ordered a halt to the wedding march, opponents pushed for a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage, which President Bush has endorsed.
The SJC's ruling also galvanized opponents of gay marriage in Massachusetts, prompting lawmakers in this heavily Democratic, Roman Catholic state to adopt a state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but legalize Vermont-style civil unions. The earliest it could wind up on the ballot is 2006 -- possibly casting a shadow on the legality of perhaps thousands of gay marriages that take place in the intervening years.
Massachusetts joins the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada's three most populous provinces as the only places in the world where gays can marry. The rest of Canada is expected to follow soon.
The city of Cambridge, a liberal bastion that is home to Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, opened its doors to couples at midnight, and remained open until about 4:30 a.m. to accommodate the people who flocked there to make history.
The first couple to receive marriage paperwork was Marcia Hams, 56, and her partner, Susan Shepherd, 52, of Cambridge. After 27 years together, they sat at a table across from a city official shortly after midnight, filling out forms as their adult son looked on.
"I feel really overwhelmed," Hams said as they left the clerk's office and walked through a throng of reporters. "I could collapse at this point."
About 15 protesters, most from Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church, stood near City Hall carrying signs. The group, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps Sr., travels around the country protesting homosexuality.
Out-of-state gay couples are likely to challenge Massachusetts' 1913 marriage statute, which bars out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if the union would be illegal in their home state. Gov. Mitt Romney, a gay-marriage opponent, has said the law will be enforced and clerks who give licenses to nonresidents may face legal implications.
Still, local officials in Provincetown, Worcester and Somerville, have said they will not enforce Romney's order and will give licenses to any couples who ask, as long as they sign the customary affidavit attesting that they know of no impediment to their marriage.
Sure enough, Chris McCary, 43, and his partner of six years, John Sullivan, 37, of Anniston, Ala., were first in line outside town hall in Provincetown on Monday morning.
"This is the most important day of my life," said McCary.
Both sides in the debate say the issue may figure prominently in the November elections across the country.
Candidates for Congress could face pressure to explain their position on a proposed federal constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, and voters in several states will consider similar amendments to their state constitutions.
Married couples are entitled to hundreds of right and protections under Massachusetts law, including the ability to file joint state tax returns, automatic preference for making medical decisions for a disabled spouse and workers' compensation benefits. But other rights, such as the ability to jointly file a federal tax return, are not available because federal law defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/051704dnnatgay.280a.html
Sure fire method. Get drunk, come home late at 3 am, wake her up to have sex and when she declines explain your idea to her about marrying her sister. She'll think its a wonderful idea, after the divorce of course.
There is plenty of partnership law that can be used. THe contract is now all about rights and therefore it needs to be rewritten. Using partnership statutes and its legal history will be a perfect platform to launch the new marriage laws.
:D
er . . . no . . . though I did cruise by ;->
It was like frickin' mardi gras . . except no topless college girls. Seriously, it was like New Year's Eve. Those people were seriously happy.
"Tanya McCloskey, 52, and Marcia Kadish, 56, of Malden went at a breakneck pace to fill out paperwork, get a waiver from the three-day waiting period, then return to city hall — where they got their marriage license and exchanged vows."
Three day waiting period? We don't need no stinking three day waiting period. What rule of law? We don't need no stinking laws at all!
This was a bastardization of marriage by a relatively small group of people, and it is no longer legal in the one state (Utah) where it was accepted.Only those without a sense of perspective or the ability to understand the problem with apples and oranges comparisons.
This is a vague statement that can be applied during any debate.They have? I'm sure that you could point to a recent occurance.
Ummm.... do you watch the news? NAMBLA has been involved in gay marches and protests througout the last 10 to 15 years. They have marched with them on a number of occasions, including the NY St. Patrick's Day "alternate" parade. Very few homosexuals have condemned them.State the nature of these "deviant groups", and I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to point out how their "cause" and their demands are not on par with same-sex marriage benefits.
My point here is that this opens a legal door to all kinds of things. If you need specificity here, the sky is the limit. Group marriages, polygamy, polyandry, pedophilia, beastiality, the list can go on and on. Of course, gay rights advocates will maintain that it has to be between "consenting adults" ... but if you can change the language from "a man and a woman" why can't it be changed to "consenting parties" or even have it eliminated altogether?The Internet is a source of both Freerepublic and child pornography. Shall I condemn the former because of the latter's derivation from the same source?
Your apples and oranges argument applies here. I'm throwing it back at you for the shear ridiculousness of it.
I don't know if you are a homosexual or not, and I really don't care. I just don't understand why many homosexuals feel the need to flaunt it and throw it into everyone's faces. My personal opinion is that homosexuality is a disorder of some kind. It is not biologically natural.... and that is not a point that can be argued.
"Hey, babe, your sister looks pretty good. I'm thinkin' 'bout marryin' her an' fatherin' some more kids. You gotta problem wit' dat?"
"Get outta here fag lover man. You always soil every thread you populate."
Look, people have different opinions about the impact this stuff is going to have on society. Your insults to this person who doesn't share your opinion diminishes you. Why do it?
”Guns Before Butter.”
My sense of this is that the MSM and networks are already downplaying the story today... deliberately to keep it from benefitting Bush.
The government doesn't limit how many children you can have. They all get huge benefits from the taxpayers -- education, tax breaks, etc... Why not multiple spouses, if liberty is our ultimate value and moral codes are our only vices?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
