Free Republic

BOSTON (Reuters) - The lesbian couple whose landmark lawsuit helped Massachusetts become the only state in America where same-sex couples can marry legally have split up, a spokeswoman said on Friday.Julie and Hillary Goodridge and six other gay and lesbian couples sued Massachusetts for the right to marry and won when the state's highest court ruled narrowly for them in 2003.Their suit helped spark a nationwide debate on gay marriage.The women "are amicably living apart," Mary Breslauer, a spokeswoman for the couple said. "As always their number one priority is raising their daughter, and like the other plaintiff couples in...

They told the world that their relationship was like any other and that's why they should be allowed to marry. Now, friends say, they are showing once again that they are just like any other couple: Two years after getting married, Julie and Hillary Goodridge, lead plaintiffs in the state's landmark gay marriage case, are splitting. Mary Breslauer, a spokeswoman for the couple, confirmed the separation last night. She said the couple are focused now on trying to do what is best for their daughter, Annie, 10. ``Julie and Hillary Goodridge are amicably living apart," Breslauer said in a telephone...

BOSTON — The lesbian couple whose lawsuit led to legal same-sex marriage in Massachusetts have announced they have separated. "Julie and Hillary Goodridge are amicably living apart," Mary Breslauer, a local political consultant, said Thursday night on their behalf. Breslauer declined to comment on how long they had been separated or whether the couple planned to divorce.

BOSTON - Gay-marriage supporters flooded into the Statehouse on Wednesday, countered by a smaller group of opponents, for a vote by lawmakers against a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to between a man and a woman. Early arrivals lined Beacon Street holding signs and banners. Hundreds more signs leaned against the Statehouse fence, and flats of bottled water were stacked in preparation for a long day of rallying and lobbying. People gathered in front the Statehouse and in front of the House chamber, where debate was to begin later Wednesday. The turnout was significantly lower than during last...

Opponents of same-sex marriage call it an unexpected and remarkable move: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has agreed to hear oral arguments on a request to block the ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the commonwealth. Same-sex couples have been permitted to legally marry in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004, as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge v. Department of Public Health decision.

‘Cesspool’ apparently loses its attraction WORCESTER, MA -- As she prepares to flee our Bay State “cesspool” for the moral purity of southern climes, Laurie A. Letourneau has clearly underestimated her impact on Central Massachusetts. “I don’t mean to be facetious,” said the head of the Life Action League of Massachusetts, when I called to ask about her moving plans. “But who really cares?” Laurie, Laurie. Lots of people care that you’re leaving the homo-loving, queer-kissing, Satanic sandpit that is Massachusetts. Just one question, though — can you take Ron Crews with you? “She’s leaving?” asked an ebullient Al Toney...

May 17 was, in the words of Ron Crews of the Massachusetts Family Institute, “a day of mourning.” For on that day, Massachusetts officials began marrying man to man, and woman to woman. Those who brought about this state of affairs claim to believe in “equality” and to be “democrats,” but in fact are elites who will have nothing of equality, let alone democracy. Five elite groups brought about same-sex marriage, which is however not an unalterable condition: Activist judges, the establishment media, ultraliberal elected officials, gay activist organizations and the homosexual activist, “shadow government.” In the Supreme Court’s June...

February 6, 2004 - Friday Massachusetts (more on this state) On Nov. 18, 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts set off a time bomb that could redefine marriage for every American. By a vote of 4-3, these unelected judges ruled that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the state constitution, and ordered the state legislature to address the issue by changing Massachusetts law. State legislators have the opportunity to defuse this bomb with their vote on Feb. 11, 2004. On this day, both houses of the state legislature will convene in joint session as a Constitutional convention. On the...

<p>February 9, 2004 -- Americans oppose the idea of gay marriage by a 2-1 ratio, according to a new Time magazine poll that also suggests any candidate who endorses the idea could pay a big political price.</p> <p>The poll found 62 percent don't want gay marriages recognized as legal while 30 percent are in favor. In addition, 48 percent said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports gay marriage.</p>

I arrived at the Rally for Marriage at 2:30 while Don Feder was speaking missing the first speaker. The crowd was impressive, best guess would be about 3000- 3500, a good draw for a twenty degree day with a wind chill of below 0. Across Tremont Street a group of sodomites, lesbians, and other off brands, about 125 or so, were cluttering up the sidewalk waving the fag flag and signs complaining about discrimination and despoiling the constitution, yeah. I met JMT576 and his uncle and we desided to walk around, take some pictures for posting, and generally get a...

BOSTON - The Massachusetts high court ruled Tuesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples — rather than civil unions — would meet the edict of its November decision, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages would take place in the state beginning in mid-May. AP Photo Slideshow: Same-Sex Marriage Issues The court issued the opinion in response to a request from the state Senate about whether Vermont-style civil unions, which conveyed the benefits — but not the title of marriage — would meet constitutional muster. The much-anticipated opinion sets the stage for next Wednesday's Constitutional...

In Massachusetts, Karl Rove has unearthed a weapon of mass distraction-related program activity. You may recall that the state's Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling in November legalizing gay marriage. That ruling allowed Rove, President Bush's political handler, to change the subject. He didn't want to go into the presidential campaign talking about the issues that matter most in the life of the republic: the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the gargantuan (and growing) budget deficit, millions of lost jobs. He didn't want Bush to have to defend his decisions on the environment, his pandering to...

LOWELL, Mass. (AP) - Leaders of the Massachusetts Democratic Party voted to back a resolution supporting same-sex civil marriage, just two weeks before lawmakers are scheduled to decide on a constitutional amendment to ban it. The nonbinding voice vote Thursday by a majority of approximately 200 members of the state committee ignored deep divisions within the party on the issue. But state party chairman Philip Johnston said it sends the message that "we support protecting the rights of these individuals, and I think most of the rest of the state will support us." The committee also unanimously backed a resolution...

<p>LOWELL -- Massachusetts Democratic Party leaders last night backed a resolution advocating unambiguous support for gay civil marriage, ignoring deep divisions in the party's ranks. The resolution, approved in a nonbinding vote that left the party's official platform untouched, would appear to be only the second by a state party in the nation. It was approved by a majority voice vote by the approximately 200 members of the state committee present, less than two weeks before the Legislature is scheduled to decide on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. State Party Chairman Philip Johnston said the vote sends a clear message to the nation that "we support protecting the rights of these individuals, and I think most of the rest of the state will support us." "I think it's very important the party speak out on this issue," he said.</p>

NEW YORK -- Despite laws already barring gay marriage, legislators in at least nine states are pushing for new, more sweeping measures in hopes of preventing any ripple effect from laws and court rulings elsewhere. In most cases, Republican lawmakers in states with existing Defense of Marriage acts seek to go a step further by amending their constitutions to specify that marriage must be heterosexual. State Rep. Bill Graves, a bill sponsor in Oklahoma, wants to stipulate that same-sex unions are "repugnant to the public policy" of the state. Supporters say the constitutional amendments are necessary to ensure that legislation...

Boston-AP) -- The Catholic Church in Massachusetts may be open to extending some benefits to gay couples. That was the message of Worcester Bishop Daniel Reilly at today's Statehouse hearing on legalizing gay marriage. Reilly said the church is firmly against gay marriage and civil unions, but believes that the state should provide gay couples with certain economic and social benefits, including bereavement and hospital visitation rights. Gay rights advocates welcomed the Catholic Church to the debate, but said that denial of marriage would be a violation of same-sex couples' civil rights. The Judiciary Committee today hosted the first-ever legislative...

IMPORTANT ACTION ALERT It is crucial that every pro-family American express their opinion to Sen. Travaglini, as the outcome of this situation in Massachusetts will affect every state and every American. The Massachusetts Legislature is approaching a very important vote: the consideration of the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment (the "MA & PA," or H. 3190) at the Constitutional Convention to be held Feb. 11, 2004. It is the hope of the Coalition for Marriage that this amendment will be approved in Feb. in order for this crucial issue to advance toward a vote of the people of Massachusetts on...

Excerpt 3 - Chapter 27 Gay Marriage Was a 3-3 Tie, with Marshall Casting Deciding Vote Everyone who disagrees with Margaret Marshall is a "prejudiced bigot," according to her. When Marshall wrote that in her opinion, was she including the three Associate Justices who say she had no right to do what she did? This was a 3-3 tie with Marshall casting the deciding vote. She had been unable to convince even her three most capable associates. They say she had no power to do what she did. No wonder she was so nervous at oral argument and is now...

In his farewell address in 1796, George Washington cautioned his countrymen and their posterity about protecting the newly minted separation of powers established for the republic. He warned about nefarious actors who might refuse to confine themselves to their constitutional duties. Free-lancing, he advised, would lead "one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create ... a real despotism." Members of the Massachusetts legislature should consider his admonition before going through with their plan to try placate the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court with a...

This is a book review by Judge Posner of Gerstner's new book, Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution In June, the Supreme Court, in a case called Lawrence v. Texas, ruled that statutes criminalizing homosexual sodomy are unconstitutional. Immediately lawyers began wondering whether this meant that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry. (To marry persons of their sex, that is; there is no prohibition against a homosexual marrying a person of the opposite sex.) They were encouraged in their speculation by Justice Antonin Scalia's suggestion, in his dissenting opinion, that the logic of the majority opinion so dictated. Evan Gerstmann...