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.

[jwalsh07]

There is no Constitutional right for men to marry men or for women to marry women just like there is no Constitutional right to abortion.

There is no violation of the Equal Protection Clause because every American is entitled to be married as long as they marry a member of the opposite sex who doesn't happen to be their sister or 4 years old.

This is a tenth amendment issue that should be the province of the states. There is no inalienable right to marriage.

[breakem]

I'm tired of this issue and it's none of your business what's running down my leg.

I was calling CJ a liar and I thought I was specific about this.

To my memory you are sometimes just flat out wrong, but I've never known you to lie. I'm sorry if I said that somewhere, if I did I WAS WRONG AND I APOLOGIZE. If I didn't never mind.

[kcar]

I wasn't arguing that there is a constitutional agrument for this new development, only that in interpreting the spirit of the constitution in new developments the accent should be on personal freedom, not on theology. Pragmatics would lead to the notion that even if rules re: sodomy and oral sex are illegal, they cannot be enforced. So if relationships develop of in the shadowed sphere which raise complex issues as to who is due what for what reason, a pragmatic regard for maintaining the peace with an accent for personal freedom would behoove us to consider a marriage-lite legal arrangement between consenting sexual aberrants that grants them all rights of marriage except for legal adoption.

Real marriage, in social not legal terms, is in fact a committment between man and women that is biologically significant in that the rearing of offspring becomes the overriding obligation of the union. This can not be cheapened because of a marriage-lite provision for the sexually aberrant, nor is the development of a new form of legal union a necessary threat to the preexisting form more legitimately granted.
It doesn't hurt us to allow it, and it simplifies matters, why not let it be done?

[jwalsh07]

It doesn't hurt us to allow it, and it simplifies matters, why not let it be done?

I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes, period. I don't think the state should either.

I do think that marriage between men and women is and has been the strenght of America's republic. As evidence I offer the devastation that LBJ's Great Society inflicted on urban America where men were replaced by the state as head of household.

Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand and here's where I draw this one. Homosexual couples can draw up contracts that are legally binding and that should be respected as such in courts of law. That they have to go the extra mile is the price paid for choosing an unnatural union.

However, if you are going to extend the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples, then why not extend it to brothers and sisters, Mothers and daughters, Fathers and children or two friends who live together platonically. All loving relationships.

[ODDITHER]

There is no such thing as gay marriage. Before the states got involved marriage was performed by churches and simply recorded with the state. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Not two men and a woman, or two women and a man, or two men or two women.

Everything they use as an excuse as needing the "right" to marry, could be accomplished with a simple partnership agreement, and a power of attorney.

What they are really after is to try and force all Americans to accept their lifestyle through the government.

[Kevin Curry]

In fact, their marraige would be better than many of the others in our neighborhood.

How do you know that?

[breakem]

Kevin, I'll answer your question then I'm out. This thread is not worth it anymore. Maybe I'll see ya on the next one, due along any minute.

I am familiar with the people who live on our little cul de sac, that's how I know.

[Koblenz]

I have a very basic question: Why do homosexuals want this? Seriously. Gay couples don't have kids naturally, and thus all of the custody issues don't really apply. Adoption is an issue, but they can adopt now, and marriage might make it a bit easier, but there'll still be roadblocks. Taxes: they'll pay more. Pooling of assets: they can have all joint checking accounts now, buy real estate together, etc. So what do they really gain? The ability to visit their "spouse" in the hospital after visiting hours? The ability for one to change his name to the last name of his partner? do they do that?

[bvw]

Well, contracts are available for any purpose -- fully libertarian and libertine .. what ever. Specified agreements between parties.

Enforcement? Why what full-bore libertarian wants to get the government involved?!

Who calls for the government to enforce an agreement? Not manly independent libertarians!

[Cultural Jihad]

CJ the other night you called me a drug user.

First of all, no one called you a drug user. I do remember you telling me not to ping you anymore, with some whine about 'stalking,' but here you are pinging me again. Please desist from pinging me in the future. Thank you.

[Cultural Jihad]

The lib and DU ideologues are again standing shoulder to shoulder in calling for the mandated toleration of evil.

[Kevin Curry]

I am familiar with the people who live on our little cul de sac, that's how I know.

But how do you know that? How can you predict that any "marriage" between two lesbians would be a good thing?

But I can safely say without hesitation that such a s "marriage" would be unnatural, sterile, as well as sexually, psychologically, and socially dysfunctional.

I need not know anything about the traditional marriages in your cul de sac to reach such a conclusion.

[Kevin Curry]

The lib and DU ideologues are again standing shoulder to shoulder in calling for the mandated toleration of evil.

And it greatly annoys them that after having forced their sick agenda ninety-five years to the goal line, there are a few stalwart defenders dgging in who just won't yield despite all the name-calling and and all-out assaults by the pro-gay PC goon squads.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

And it greatly annoys them that after having forced their sick agenda ninety-five years to the goal line, there are a few stalwart defenders digging in who just won't yield despite all the name-calling and and all-out assaults by the pro-gay PC goon squads.

The "stalwart defenders" of State-Sanctioned Marriage are virtually doomed to fail. When you make Caesar your god, he will stab you in the back -- every time.

If even one State grants full Legal legitimacy to homosexual marriage and overcomes a Constitutional challenge in the USSC, then it's Belshazzar in reverse -- the writing is on the wall.

Meanwhile, the Libertarians have observed (correctly) that if Marriage and State are separated, the entire "field" of battle is cleared. Both Abram and Moses enjoyed healthy Marriages with Sarai and Zipporah (respectively) without the Sanction of the State; likewise will heterosexual Christian marriage survive without the approval of Caesar.

• Deny the homosexual movement the very field of battle which they seek, and you have won already.
• Enter the battle on their terms (State-sanctioned Marriage) and you have lost already.

Heterosexual Christian Marriage needs no "State Marriage license" to be Valid, Licit, and Holy. The Benediction of a duly-ordained Presbyter and the Witness of the groom and bride's respective Clans will acomplish that much, in the eyes of God. But eliminate that State Marriage License entirely, and the homosexual "couple" no longer has a State-sanctioned piece of paper to wave in Jerry Falwell's face... they have only their own "Private Contract", which no Christian church needs honor.

Without the Approval of Caesar, where's the "fun" in that??

Eliminate the State Marriage License, and you will see the "demand" for Homosexual Marriage drop by 90% or more.

The general, unable to control his irritation, will launch his men to the assault like swarming ants, with the result that one-third of his men are slain, while the town still remains untaken. Such are the disastrous effects of a siege.

Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field. ~~ Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"

[Roscoe]

The "stalwart defenders" of State-Sanctioned Marriage are virtually doomed to fail.

Delusional fanaticism.

[Caipirabob]

Social Darwinism would behoove us to be tolerant of gays

I don't think Darwinism would be a proper way to justify homosexuality in society. Darwinism and the creed of "survival of the fitest" already account for homosexuality within the animal kingdom. It is refered to as EXTINCTION. Nature's way of removing "that which is unfit to exist" from the gene pool. If we took a Darwinistic attitude towards homosexuality in modern society, it would be akin to supporting a mass suicide movement.

Still, I do agree with your point. The problem we have facing us now is the fact that they don't need to adopt. They are infiltrating our school systems to reach our children at an early impressionable age to recruit them. Organizations such as GLSEN work hand-in-pants with the NEA to coordinate "Tolerance/Diversity" training to inflict their perversion on young children via homosexual propganda and misdirection of the risks of such behavior.

GLSEN will approach a school and recruit students who will them state that they are being harrassed due to "questionable" sexuality. Then they will argue to the school board that "protections" much be installed to protect the minority of potentially gay students from persecution. Tolerance and diversity seminars will be inflicted upon innocent children with or without parental notification. Sooner or later, children will be invited to attend "off campus" GLSEN activities where they can then be "recruited" into the homosexual lifestyle. That is the GLSEN MOO.

That is why it cannot be tolerated publicly. They inenvitablely cannot control themselves and will prey upon our innocent children if we give them so much as an inch on the issue. In this case it is best to think of the well being and safety of children and beat them back into the closet.

[xzins]

Roscoe, Ortho is correct. Christian marriages have absolutely nothing to do with the state. The legal "protections and prohibitions" are insignificant for believers who are married in the eyes of God and the church.

Christians would do well to leave this battlefield altogether and begin marrying within their own domain...totally ignore the state.

[Dutchgirl]

Without the Approval of Caesar, where's the "fun" in that??

If marriage once again became available only sacramentally, wouldn't we see a rise in "Vegas" style churches that exist only to grant speedy divorces and homosexual marriage?

My mother (a catholic) married an agnostic. After 7 kids, the state granted a divorce, after the divorce, the Catholic Church granted my mother an annullment...saying that my father never seriously intended to become a Catholic. This was in 1970- before the big divorce boom.

What role do you see for the church, if it steps aside from this battle in this nation?

[Jim Noble]

>>Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman<<

Actually, marriage is defined as the permanent union of a man and a woman, and it is already abolished in all fifty states.

The legalization of homosexual marriage (and, yes, polygamy) is inevitable as the (unstated at the time) corollary to the abolition of heterosexual marriage.

Restoration involves more than forbidding homosexuals to avail themselves of the fruits of heterosexual temporary state-registered cohabitation.

[Jim Noble]

>>The Supreme Court has already ruled on this<<

It was 5-4, and contradicts much of their other jurisprudence. I think Bowers v. Hardwick cannot survive another similar case being presented for review.