Gay marriages approved in MA

[Turner]

Mass. Court Strikes Down Gay-Marriage Banhttp://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20031118_694.html
BOSTON Nov. 18 — Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution, but stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law.
The court ruled 4-3, ordering the Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days.

The Supreme Judicial Court's ruling closely matches the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court decision, which led there to the Legislature's approval in 2000 of civil unions that give couples many of the same benefits of marriage.

The decision is the latest in a series of victories for gay rights advocates, but fell short of what the seven couples who sued the state had hoped to receive: the right to marry their longtime companion.

The Massachusetts question will now return to the Legislature, which already is considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal.

A similar initiative, launched by citizens, was defeated by the Legislature last year on a procedural vote.

I personally don't care what two consenting adults do in their private lives. If two guys or two girls want to be married to each other, more power to them. So to MA for going ahead with this. I hope the other 49 states soon follow through.

 

[superslug]

Well, this should certainly fuel the other thread...

 

[SideshowBob]

I thought that gay marriages were allowed already in some states? Hawaii?

But good for Massachusetts. Or more correctly the gay people there. Hopefully no fanatics turn up throwing rocks at them (instead of rice - don't know if you have the rice-throwing-tradition over there) which was more or less the case for the first married gay couples in Finland

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Another sign that tolerance and common sense are burying that vague straw man known as "tradition".

Hooray for Massachussets!

 

[SeleucusNicator]

This is going to create a big mess. Marriage is an institution that has for hundreds of years been solely between men and women. I'm willing to bet that virtually all of our laws on that institution are written with that assumption.

That could lead to trouble down the road.

I'm much more in favor of "civil unions", which is what Vermont has. Less controversial, less complicated, just as effective.

 

[Perfection]

Yeah, tolerance is good

now let's get congress to follow!

 

[croxis]

The thing is civil unions do not cross state lines. Marriages can. Also there is a law passed in 1996 that makes it illegal for the federal government to ban same sex marriages when a state passed it.

 

[Comraddict]

so now everybody can avoid taxes: i'll marry my roommate and declare our 3rd roommate as our depedent.

 

[Sims2789]

this is a great day for America and Civil Rights.

 

[Sims2789]

Originally posted by Comraddict
so now everybody can avoid taxes: i'll marry my roommate and declare our 3rd roommate as our depedent.

i can move in with a girl, have no romantic relationship with her, have us legally wed, and then we can avoid taxes. but you don't bash so-called straight marraiges.

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
This is going to create a big mess. Marriage is an institution that has for hundreds of years been solely between men and women. I'm willing to bet that virtually all of our laws on that institution are written with that assumption.

That could lead to trouble down the road.

I'm much more in favor of "civil unions", which is what Vermont has. Less controversial, less complicated, just as effective.

one of the Roman emporers married a man.

...Marriage is an institution that has for hundreds of years been solely between men and women...

well, slavery has been around for THOUSANDS of years, so lets legalize that to.

my point is: THINGS CHANGE!! and allowing gays to marry is one of them. i wish my state allowed gays to marry.(it's the rednecks in the Valley's fault)

 

[Sims2789]

Originally posted by SideshowBob
I thought that gay marriages were allowed already in some states? Hawaii?

But good for Massachusetts. Or more correctly the gay people there. Hopefully no fanatics turn up throwing rocks at them (instead of rice - don't know if you have the rice-throwing-tradition over there) which was more or less the case for the first married gay couples in Finland

Hawai'i used to have it legalized, but marriage was segregated in 1998 it was once again made illegal.

 

[Plexus]

Marriage is not a right, this is not a rights issue. The present definition of marriage according to Webster's Dictionary is as follows:

1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.

And on top of that, the majority of Americans do not even support gay marriage.

 

[Sims2789]

yeah, and Websters Dictionary says that a pimp is "a man who solicits prostitution" even though we all know that pimps enslave hookers, instead of only finding customers for them, which is what good old Webster would have you believe.

And on top of that, the majority of Americans do not even support gay marriage.

then they can either:

a)move to Mexico when we legalize it. then again, there aren't many whites in mexico, and many homophobes the same people who wear white hoods and burn crosses, so they wouldn't like Mexico. how about moving to Britain?

b)they can live with it.

 

[Plexus]

So you just want America to be an ideological dictatorship, totally ignoring the opinions of the majority of Americans?

That makes sense.

 

[onejayhawk]

There are a lot of constitutional objections to calling same sex unions "marriage." The term marriage has a complex and loaded meaning in the law. Marriage has centuries of legal history behind it it, and many of the associated load of legal meanings having to do with offspring. For example, a child born into a marriage is assumed to be the child of both parents, even though now it might be the child of neither, genetically speaking. Without marriage, the ties attach only to the mother. There are valid reasons not to want to extend these legal distinctions to same sex couples.

The constitution comes in because of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause, which is regarded as the most tricky and difficult part of the Constitution. In a nutshell, it says that someone married in any state is married in every state, regardless of the states feelings about it. Even Massachusetts is reluctant to take on that much responsibility. Wisely so.

For the record, I would prefer that marriage refer to the joining of one man and one woman, with the intent that those two have an exclusive relationship, in the sexual sense, and the the result is children. What I want and what is are often only distantly related however. None the less, I feel it would be a grave mistake to formally dissociate marriage from children. If Massachusetts wants to recognize a formal union with most of the rights and priviledges that go with marriage, that is up to them. That would effect only Massachusetts. If they recognize marriage of same sex individuals, that effects all 50 states.

J

 

[andrewgprv]

Originally posted by Plexus
So you just want America to be an ideological dictatorship, totally ignoring the opinions of the majority of Americans?

That makes sense.

You might wanna check your sources depending on the survey and the time of questioning results vary, in two different surveys the majority of Americans approved of same-sex marrage.

 

[Plexus]

I know that the poll results may not be totally reliable as I have only found one, but sims's argument about "if you do not like it, go away" is not democratic.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Arguing about the terminology is ridiculous.

Gay people do not want to be married so they can put "Mr. and Mr. Smith" or "Mrs. and Mrs. Alcott" on on their Christmas greeting cards, folks.

They don't want the legal status of marriage, but the rights and privileges OF that status. Visitation with sick spouses and the authority to make medical decisions in their stead, to choose a specific example.

If you can invent a separate status for them [civil union, anyone?] that confers on them the same legal status AS married couples, but does not use the exact term "marriage", I think everyone would be satisfied.

 

[Speedo]

If you can invent a separate status for them [civil union, anyone?] that confers on them the same legal status AS married couples, but does not use the exact term "marriage", I think everyone would be satisfied.

That why is that very suggestion always shot down with cries such as the following? (quotes from discussions on various forums)

I have read a few more of the posts on here and it just never ceases to amaze me, from people here saying, "call it a union, don't call it marriage, because it will open up a can of worms" is like saying, it was ok to have COLORED ONLY schools, bathrooms and other public venues.

Yes, perhaps they could be given similarly identifying armbands, their own 'summer camps' and water fountains and restrooms.

 

[croxis]

The majority of americans also didn't want inter-ethnic marriages... all they way into the 1970s.