Lop-sided Gay Marriage Battle in Massachusetts

This article (http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz112602.asp) in National Review gives a good heads-up on the coming legal battle in the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the ramifications of the decision. The deadline for the Appellee Brief from the Department of Public Health and any other Amicus Curiae is December 20, 02

So far, some 75 organizations (from Europe to California) have signed on to friend of the court Briefs in support of recognition of gay marriage in Massachusetts. NO briefs have been filed in opposition.

There is still time to file. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT AND/OR SIGN ON TO A BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO RECOGNITION OF GAY MARRIAGE CONTACT ME.

THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT IS SOLICITING AMICUS BRIEFS OR MEMORANDA FROM INTERESTED PARTIES IN THE FOLLOWING APPEAL PENDING BEFORE THE COURT.

THE ARGUMENT IS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 2003. SJC-08860 Hillary Goodridge & others v. Department of Public Health & another

The issue presented is whether the Commonwealth is required statutorily or constitutionally to recognize same-sex marriages.

Interested parties may inspect the briefs and appendices on file in the Office of the Clerk for the Commonwealth, 1412 Courthouse, Pemberton Square, Boston (Telephone 617-557-1020).

Parties filing amicus briefs are expected to comply with the requirements of Rules 17, 19 and 20 of Mass. Rules of Appellate Procedure. Amicus briefs, to assist the court, should focus on the ramifications of a decision and not solely on the interests of the parties filing such briefs"

Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts; Women's Bar Association of Masschusetts; National Lawyers Guild, Mass. chapter; Massachusetts NOW; Massachusetts Black Women's Attorneys; Laywers' Comiteee for Civil Rights under Law of the Boston Bar Assoc.; Greater Boston Rights Coalition; Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston; American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; People for the American Way Foundation; Lamda Legal Defense and Education Fund; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Assoc. of Women Lawyers; National Organization for Women foundation, INc.; Northwest Women's Law Center; Now Legal Defense and Education fund; Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund,; Community Change, Inc.; Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; National Asian Pacific American egal Consortium; Puerto Rico Legal Defense and Education Fund; Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action; National Council of Jewish Women ; Professors of Remedies , Constitutional Law and Litigation (20 individuals); Mass. Psychiactric Society; American Psychoanalytical Association; National Assoc. of Social Workers; Mass. Chpater of the National Assoc. of Social Workers; Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute; Mass. Assoc. for Psychonanalytic Psychology; The Gottman Institute and 4 Doctors; Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry (Various); Professors of State Constitutions Law (9); Coalition gaie et lexbienne du Quebec; Egale Canda Inc.; Federation internationale des ligues des Droits de l'Homme; Human Right Watch; ILGA; ILGA-Europe; ILGA-North American; Inrer American Center for Human Rights; Interrights; INternational Lesbian and Gay Law Association; Japan Association for the Lesbian and Gay Movement; Lesbian and Gay Equality Project; Pink Cross; Rechtskomitee; (plus 21 Individuals); Professors of History of Marriage, Famileis and the Law (Various); professors of Expressions and Constitutional Law (13); Freedom to Marry Coalition of Massachusetts; Freedom to Marry Foundation; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trangender Political; Alliance of Western Massachusetts; Mass. Gay and Lesbian Political Caucas; Bay Area lawyers for Individual Freedom; Freedom to Marry Collaborative; Human Rights Campaign; Natinoal Gay and Lesbian Task Force; PridePlanners Assoc.

Despite the potential for national remification of this decison there were no Amicus briefs in oppositon as of Nov. 29, 2002

AGAIN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT AND/OR SIGN ON TO A BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO RECOGNITION OF GAY MARRIAGE CONTACT ME.

Marriage by its very definition involves only humans so the cat thing doesn't apply. The rules are a different thing.

Now, answer my question, if you are the judge that just stated that marriage must be allowed for gays, what argument would you give to deny relatives or people numbering more than two (or some combination of the aforementioned) the right to marry?

And as for the public health issue, it is that the children of incestuous relationships are far more likely to be deformed or suffer major defects. This does not affect the issue of marriage. The hetero-incestuous couple/group could just decide to be sterilized or it could be a homo-incestuous couple/group which would make the point moot.

Well it seems like you're quite the advocate for intra-family marraiges. Perhaps you'll start a new thread and let others more informed than I respond.

The cat was thrown in because it's part of the slippery slope argument some of you logicians seem to apply on these anti-gay marraige threads.

Now here's my answer to the question you insists I answer. If I'm a jugdge I just tell the people what the law says. If the question is constitutionality, I'd put the government on the outside of this issue and let people do their thing. Who cares. They already have sex with what and whoever.

The question for me is what benefits does the government-approved marraige afford and why would those benefits be denied two other people. The government butting out let's me go to my church and the guy next door go into the woods and howl. Again, who cares?

As far as polygamy or whatever, same answer. The mormons were fine with it and were pressured out of it by the US government. Perhaps if we had a serious war or death of an inordinate amount of one gender, the government would require polygamy. If we can do it for the "good" of society, why not let folks do it on their own dime?

Marriage other than a man/woman situation becomes a problem when priviledges reserved for marriage are expected. Take any employer,how about the military? Sgt. Smith has six wives and 27 children. Okay, so there is no room for them in the base housing, but those medical benefits are great. Now he is transferred overseas. Does the family go to?

and why are you guys so worried about incest? Birth defects are exaggerated for incest. And with the birth rate so low... well it's not a major issue.

I'm not an advocate for intra-family marriages and I'll thank you not to ever again try tarring me with such a vile brush. And again, I point out that the marry the cat argument is simply creating a straw man and hacking it to pieces.

I'm just pointing out that the basis that uphold the laws against incest and polygamous marriages in the US are the same ones that uphold the laws against homosexual marriage. The Constitution is silent on marriage so that's neither here nor there.

And besides, you must know that there are "churches" that marry gays. The marriage is just simply not recognized by the government. What the Gay lobby is fighting for is this recognition with its attendant benefits, etc.

Marriage is the basic building block of every civilization on this Earth. Any culture in which marriage does not exist today is not far beyond the Stone Age. That's a fact. That's why it's important that society recognizes it and assigns it privileges denied many other relationships. You may not agree but the vast majority of America agrees and you have to take that into account.

Marriage's value as an institution is entirely dependent on the prestige and value it is given by society. The government exists to serve society and therefore it must respect marriage and the rules it encapsulates. Society doesn't want gay marriage but it wants straight marriage recognized. So taking the government out of it may sound nice and Libertarian (and Libertine) but it is not an acceptable position.

So you ducked the question. You are in support of gay marriage. That's your position. Okay. Now as a judge who just demanded that gay marriages be recognized by the state, you are faced with a couple/group who happen to be extremely closely related who want their marriage to be recognized by the state. What would you rule? And why?

The attenedent benefits are exactly what they want. It's called equal protection under the law. All the more reason for the gov to get out of the biz.

You kept explaining about intrafamily marraiges and I took it to mean you were an advocate. If the cat is a straw man, so is incest. We were talking about unrelated adults of the same gender and you opened up the can. Now you chastize me for following your lead. Let me know which game you want play or is it just find a way to attack, even your own technique.

Interesting ... So gay marriage should be legalized because of the 14th Amendment, i.e. Equal Protection. Good. Now we're getting somewhere. Now the law in the states is that only two people, of opposite genders, who are unrelated can have state-recognized marriages.

You say it violates the 14th Amendment to not recognize the "marriage" of two people, of the same gender, who are unrelated. BUT, does it not violate the 14th Amendment that two people, of whatever gender composition, who are related cannot have their marriages recognized? How does it not?

There are two many negatives in your question. I don't understand it.

I have said government should butt out of marraige, but if it is in and ties benefits then it must recognize the marraige of the two women down the street. My argument is that simple.

You folks that know the history of each amendment are impressive, but don't confuse the constitution with rights.

ANSWER THE QUESTION? We're you my third grade teacher or just a wannabe.

Was or you or someone else on this thread who made the public health case against relatives marrying. I'll go with that unless you can make a stronger case. It's not my area of interest and I haven't done an ounce of research.

Also against kids marrying. And also against marraige between species.

Post away and I'll respond to your info.

Question for you to include in your lecture. Since people who are related have sex and some babies, isn't the genie already out of the bottle?

And no one has answered my question, but I know you have it on the tip of your mouse, why does the government have a role in this anyway?

You're becoming incoherent, breakem. Calm down ...

The government is involved because it is an important enough relationship that must be safeguarded and respected, which also means that it must be granted certain privileges. You'll not find a single civilization on this Earth that doesn't do the same.

You seem to be under the impression that demanding that the Government butt out of something makes you "more Conservative than thou ...". That's not the case. In fact, it is decidedly NOT conservative to demand so of an institution as essential as marriage.

Now, as for the straw men of animals and kids (human, not the young of goats) getting "married", let's first of all define a cardinal prerequisite of marriage; that the two people getting married must be consenting. Animals and children cannot give meaningful consent. This is why we have laws that forbid an adult from having sex with a child, even if the child wore sexy clothes and "asked for it". Understood? Likewise with an animal. Adults, on the other hand, can.

Now let's deal with the public health issue (which I had dealt with before but you obviously didn't read). The children produced from an incestuous sex are FAR more likely to be genetically deformed. This would be a moot point if one member of the incestuous couple is sterilized or if both are of the same sex. I hope you also know that there is a strong public health case against gay sex too, ranging from FAR higher susceptabilities to disease transmission, torn sphincter muscles, etc.

Now let's get back to the issue at hand. You're saying that under Equal Protection, a "marriage" between two people (human adults) of the same sex should be granted the recognition granted to a marriage between two people (human adults) of opposite sex.

According to this definition of the Equal Protection clause of yours, is the refusal of the state to recognize a "marriage" between two people of any sex who are closely related unconstitutional, as well?

Incoherent? Calm down?

We agree on more than I thought. We also agree on the public health issue on intrafamily marraige, to the best of my knowledge. Equal protection would not apply if the children needed to be protected. Does that mean you think father and daughter could marry if one was sterile?

For my money, gay sex would be more safe in a monogamous relationship, which might be enhanced by marraige. The women down the street may be amused that you think they are a public health threat and that's why you think they can't get married. I await your proposal that some drug users cannot marry or should we just abort their kids when the pregnancy is discovered?

If this is too incoherent, pick on someone with your high-level thought process and let us excited, incoherents ramble on.

You are calling me something I explicitly said I wasn't. Look at the last line, which says "semi-libertarian." Yes, I put a large dose of "individual rights, individual responsibilities" into my philosophy, but I am not a "full bore" anything. I have no desire to live in a society without the rule of law--enforceable law.

Therefore, I can and do advocate private contracts with the power of law behind them

"If we don't stand for freedom, straight down the line, what are we but another g-d- empire?"--Poul Anderson

A lengthy post but a good read.

I've asked the same thing on FR only to have homosexuality advocates claim that I was being ridiculous. The question must be asked if marriage is to be reappraised.

I seek none of the couplings (homosexual, polygomy, incestuous, etc.) but if the standard is to be "consenting adults", such distinctions seem to be unconstitutionally arbitrary once the "modern" limits on marriage are changed.

Few advocates are willing to press for all changes and are unwilling to identify which changes they would agree with. They are only looking out to norm their own scenario.

This could pose a definite problem for me. As a Libertarian-Conservative-Agnostic-Radical (L.C.A.R.), I doubt there's much room for me in your Christian Republic.

America's foundation is "Judaeo-Christian" values, most certainly. I respect that, and for the most part, value it. There are certainly worse ways to live your life than the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. However...

England's foundation was Norman power and rule. This has changed in the intervening ten centuries. England is still a going concern regardless.

Countries change (the alternative is death). America has changed. Large chunks of the population are no longer Christian, and, of the majority who still are, quite a few have figured out that what two (or more) consenting adults do in their own bedroom is nobody's business but those directly involved.

I am not a hypocritical liberal, to tell you that your religion has no place in politics. But I will tell you that if enough people disagree with you, you'll probably have to live with the results.

I have to live with Jennifer Granholm, for example. I cannot proclaim some basic, unalterable truth to drive her, willy-nilly, out of office. Fifty-one (I think) percent of Michigan's voters were silly enough to think that she would be a good governor. They're wrong, but their opinion will prevail.

And you cannot stone (or whatever) homosexuals.

"If we don't stand for freedom, straight down the line, what are we but another g-d- empire?"--Poul Anderson

Equal protection would not apply if the children needed to be protected.

Okay, what if it was the mother and daughter that want to get married? Or father and son? No chance of them having children, right? And after all, don't you gay marriage advocates claim that marriage has nothing to do with having children (because that would mean sterile/barren/old people couldn't get married)?

I await your proposal that some drug users cannot marry or should we just abort their kids when the pregnancy is discovered?

You were the one who brought up the public health thing, not me, remember? By your standard, incestuous "relationships" offer no public health threat as well, provided they have no kids.

And finally, yes, the government has a valid interest in safeguarding and protecting marriage. I don't think you'll find that many people, even among Libertarians, who agree with your statement that the government should not be in the business of recognizing marriages.

You seem to think that marriage is some sort of dispensable institution. It is not, breakem.

PS: Your last post (the one you replied to) was a hair's breadth away from incoherent. Read it again. Done ROTFLYAO?

I have few, I hope, closing comments. You have an interesting technique. You provide information and then when I ask you a question about it you don't answer. Example: incest. You said it's a public health issue and I asked what if they don't have kids. Your response is that I say it's okay. How can I formulate an opinion when you haven't clarified your position. Rememebr I am studying at your side on the relative marraige issue. It is you who now have not answered the questions resulting from your statements.

You challenged my position by saying even most libertarians don't agree with it. I say so what, is this the basis for winning the day? I asked you why goverment has a role in marraige and you give a vague, non-specific answer based upon some pollyanish dream that marraige is being protected by government. If this is your answer, you and the government have failed.

Who is translating these incoherent posts for you?

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.