Lop-sided Gay Marriage Battle in Massachusetts

National Review ^ | November 26, 2002 | Stanley Kurtz

[joeu]

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.

"SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH ANNOUNCEMENT

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"

Organizations which have filed IN SUPPORT of gay marriage recognition are:

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.

[L.N. Smithee]

I know that government approved marraiges have nothing to do with the quality of marraige or the good of society. The government approved marraiges fail at a high rate. The government does no screening and some of these marraiges are abominations. So if it's societal good you want, your rules don't work.

What do you think causes societal good? Just curious.

[L.N. Smithee]

Oh, yeah, in answer to your question:

Last question. The two women down the street were married by their minister here in California. Are they married or not?

No. They're not. They aren't married in the eyes of the law, and they aren't married in the eyes of God, either -- unless you count the one that exists only in their minds.

[breakem]

They were married by their minister in their religion. Your knowledge of what God thinks of their marraige is awesome. I certainly can't top your contacts. I'll tell them tomorrow, you said God said no deal. And hey thay couls still get a discount on that ring.

I guess you want the government to support your religion over theirs? Last I heard that was unconstitutional.

[breakem]

Re 21, I guess limiting marraige to a man and a woman doesn't do it. Perhaps you can tell me and provide some evidence of your view. I gave reasons for mine in my post to onedoug. Or are you no longer answering for him.

[jwalsh07]

How can a secular government which must provide equal protection under the law stop two unrelated adults from getting married.

Its actually quite simple. Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. Nothing prevents any number of people from entering into all manner of contracts with one another and calling it any thing they want. They just can't call it marriage.

[breakem]

I'll tell these women tomorrow, we voted and they lost. so they can't be married. Thanx for clearing it up.

You do know that marraige has been defined many ways by different cultures and religions. So be careful with the use of the singular (man, woman). Wasn't too long ago 12 year old girls could wed in the US, so that woman thing may not hold as a good example. Might add girl to the mix. Don't be so sure the definition will not change again, perhaps in your time.

[jwalsh07]

You can tell the women whatever you please.

You can be snide if it rings your bell.

But you can't change the meaning of words, they couldn't in Vermont and they won't be able to in Massachusetts and if you can't do it in those two places then your vision of a world where you can change the meaning of words at the behest of narrow minorities is still some ways down the road.

[breakem]

LOL! You take yourself too seriously. The meaning of words change all the time. You don't have an accurate historical perspective on the changes of marraige laws. You ignore my other questions. And you make declarations which are just untrue.

[L.N. Smithee]

They were married by their minister in their religion. Your knowledge of what God thinks of their marraige is awesome. I certainly can't top your contacts. I'll tell them tomorrow, you said God said no deal. And hey thay couls still get a discount on that ring.

The anticipated sarcastic response, right on schedule. Remember, you asked. I answered. Don't blame me.

You don't need "contacts." You just have to open the book. Not necessarily the Bible, either; try the Qu'ran or the Torah or the Book of Mormon, or any number of Eastern writings. Few religions that aren't created from whole cloth -- if any -- endorse homosexuality or lesbianism, and most outright condemn it as sinful.

I live in San Francisco. I have known a lot of gay people. They have been my neighbors. I have worked with them, I have been taught in school by them, I even came very close to having a business partnership with an organization that had a lesbian as an EVP (the group lost its funding). I also know some people who used to be homosexual. One is one of my best friends, and he is very happily married.

They can do whatever they please as long as they don't do it to tick me off, which is a common trait of gay activists in this city.

I guess you want the government to support your religion over theirs? Last I heard that was unconstitutional.

Poppycock. The definition of marriage as being between a man and woman is the choice of the electorate of California. Even if the reasons the electorate decided on that definition are religious, rough spit. There's nothing un-Constitutional about that.

I suppose if you had your way, people wouldn't be allowed to vote based on their religious beliefs. It's time some people in Massachusetts get the lesson in civics that you hadn't learned either.

[breakem]

Your statement that I wouldn't let people vote based upon religious views shows an ignorance of human rights on your part. You imply that this should be subject to vote. You can't deny or approve equal treatment under the law or the exercise of a human right on the basis of plurality vote. You do understand that don't you. If you don't please ask your friends on this sight. I have no patience for remediation.<p.The sarcasm was a response to the arrogance on this thread of people telling others that their religious beliefs are wrong and that their beliefs should be subject to the will of the majority. Easy to be sarcastic in the face of these comments. Of course you would anticipate sarcasm in response to such remarks.

[L.N. Smithee]

I guess limiting marraige to a man and a woman doesn't do it. Perhaps you can tell me and provide some evidence of your view. I gave reasons for mine in my post to onedoug.

You have established what you think doesn't work. My question was, "What do you think causes societal good?"

You do have an answer, don't you?

[breakem]

Your's is a very broad question and philosophical. I don't want to respond to it tonight and I am kind of a readers digest type of poster, so I may never do justice to your question. Perhaps a thread would serve you better.

I gave my opinion that it obviously isn't happy, government-sponsored heterosexual marraiges and a short explanation earlier. That's all I have to say for now, except, I'm not sure that government has a broad role to play on societal good. Perhaps you would prefer a country like Sweden or some of the others where government actually determines or controls more of daily life. Then there is still the question of whether or not that is acheiving good.

In this matter the burden is on you and those who have seen the true path to explain that path's impact on our society.

[L.N. Smithee]

Your statement that I wouldn't let people vote based upon religious views shows an ignorance of human rights on your part. You imply that this should be subject to vote. You can't deny or approve equal treatment under the law or the exercise of a human right on the basis of plurality vote.

Make up your mind. Are you basing your views on what's Constitutional, or what you view as "human rights"?

The sarcasm was a response to the arrogance on this thread of people telling others that their religious beliefs are wrong and that their beliefs should be subject to the will of the majority.

The case could easily be made that all the gay organizations are doing the exact same thing in opposing the Massachusetts measure -- except it would be the will of the minority.

If you are bothered by the answer, like I told you, you asked for it. Don't blame me. As Fleetwood Mac said years ago, "Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to."

[jla]

Your comments, at Post #19, were right on the mark.
I believe the homosexual lobby has been successful in advancing their cause incrementally, and it's lowered the guard of quite a few in the G.O.P.

The homosexual lobby, as well as the pro-abortion, lobby have won their battles in our nation's courts. This is why I anxiously await to see the finale of Justice Roy Moore's refusal to obey the edict of Judge Myron Thompson.

I know that if this occurred in the 80's, Roy Moore would be publicly acknowledged by that President.
W may have his own strategy though, and as I said a while back, we should be willing to back him 100% until the elections of Nov. 5th, 2002.

After the first of the year, we will truly see if W is the heir to Reagan that he's led us to believe.

I'm bettin' he is.

And Grim Reaper...you'll be expected down at the Landrieu Campaign Headquarters on December 7th.

[breakem]

Constitution or human rights. Yes to both. I believe the constitution does not intend to list all human rights. I hold that there is a right to marry or join with another or whatever you want to call it. And someday the court, maybe even a conservative one, will require the government to treat adults equally. BTW no one has answered my question about the need for the government to be in the marraige business.

Have you surrendered on your plurality vote method of deciding this?

I don't care two hoots what gay groups, conservatives, libertarians, librarians, Bill Clinton, or late night posters think. I decide what I think on the basis of my own logic, knowledge, and beliefs. I don't determine my position because some "out group" may agree with it.

You said I got the response I deserve and I might say the same to you for the sarcasm.

I'm out for now. Til the next gay marraige thread. One is due along any hour now.

[mdmathis6]

I wonder how the IRS marriage penalty tax would apply with these types of marriages...the homo's might find that fiancially they should have left marriage alone!

[L.N. Smithee]

LOL! You take yourself too seriously.

He takes himself too seriously?!

He's rubber and you're glue.

[eccentric]

The two women down the street were married by their minister here in California. Are they married or not?

It becomes an issue when they demand rights for the married. No, I don't want them adopting my grandchild nor being foster parents to my child if I were to be hospitalized. When these issues involve children, it is a lot closer to home.

[breakem]

Well, these women aren't DEMANDing anything, but of course some are very demanding and annoying don't you think. I wish these people would accept their subservience in our society and go back in the closet. Don't you?

These women would like to share property and worry about hospital procedures which require much more paper work than we government-approved married types have to go through. I believe the governement should just get out of the business.

I have some of the worries about homosexual parents that most of us here have. Best case father and mother. They bring what I consider the perfect blend to parenting. However, I have seen many abusive parents. I worked 28 years in juvenile corrections. These two women and a guy I worked with would be far and away better parents than many I've seen at work or some I've lived near.

There's a real quality issue here. Being a heterosexual couple does not automatically mean success and being homo does not mean failure. It's really based on the individuals character and love for each other and the child. Government approval does not consider the quality issue. It merely discriminates against one situation in favor of the other. Something I believe denies human rights and does not afford equal protection under the law. IMHO.

[robertpaulsen]

It would be interesting to pry the Libertarians away from their drug threads and get them over here to weigh in on this issue.

From what I can tell, they're in favor of this. I'd like to hear their opinions.

Anyone have a Libertarian ping list?