Massachusetts: Green Light Gay Marriage.
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 11-18-2003 - 1:11pm |
We've debated this subject at length before, therefore I'll post the link to the old discussion. The news though is new about the ruling in Mass.
I imagine they'll be a great deal of opposition in Mass. because of the many RC's in the state, JMO.
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elinthenews&msg=5041.1
Green Light For Gay Marriage.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/11/national/printable583048.shtml
Massachusetts' highest court ruled 4-3 Tuesday that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and gave lawmakers 180 days to fix the problem.
"Whether and whom to marry, how to express sexual intimacy, and whether and how to establish a family — these are among the most basic of every individual's liberty and due process rights," the majority opinion said. "And central to personal freedom and security is the assurance that the laws will apply equally to persons in similar situations."
The Supreme Judicial Court left the details of the same-sex marriage issue to the Legislature. Advocates said the case took a significant step beyond the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court decision that led to civil unions in that state.
Attorney Mary Bonauto, who represented the seven gay couples who sued the state, said the only task assigned to the Legislature is to come up with changes in the law that will allow gay couples to marry at the end of the 180-day period.
Vermont-style civil unions would not be enough, she said, because that would fall short of marriage. A constitutional ban on gay marriage could not be enacted in Massachusetts until 2006 because it takes several years to change the state's constitution.
"This is a very good day for gay and lesbian families in Massachusetts and throughout the country," Bonauto said.
But the issue may find a hostile audience in the Massachusetts Legislature, which has been 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.
And Republican Gov. Mitt Romney criticized the court ruling, saying: "Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that makes that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman."
A key group of state lawmakers also has recently been working behind the scenes to craft civil union legislation similar to the law passed in Vermont.
The court's decision drew further mixed reaction.
A Boston lawyer said the justices are telling state lawmakers what they want them to do, and she doubts the lawmakers would defy the court.
But a Massachusetts law student isn't so sure. She says she's worried state lawmakers will "try to weasel out of it somehow."
A former Boston mayor and U.S. ambassador to the Vatican criticized the ruling. Ray Flynn said the ruling is a "major setback for the sacred institution of marriage as the relationship between one man and one woman."
Gay and lesbian advocates have been cheered by a series of advances this year, including a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down anti-sodomy laws, the ordination of an openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, and a Canadian appeals court ruling that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. Belgium and the Netherlands also have legalized gay marriage.
In addition to Vermont, courts in Hawaii and Alaska have previously ruled that the states did not have a right to deny marriage to gay couples. In those two states, the decisions were followed by the adoption of constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. No American court has ordered the issuance of a marriage license — a privilege reserved for heterosexual couples.
"The question is whether the Massachusetts court is able and willing to recognize a new right for gays based upon the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in June that outlawed sodomy laws in Texas and elsewhere," reports CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen. "If Massachusetts recognizes such a right, other states might too, and there is bound to be a huge legal fight that would bring this particular issue right back before the justices."
According to a poll examining attitudes about homosexuality, opposition to gay marriage has grown since midsummer, with 32 percent favoring it and 59 percent opposing it. In July, 53 percent said they opposed gay marriage.
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press survey reinforced the finding that religious attitudes sharply affect feelings on gays and gay behavior. Those with a high level of religious commitment oppose gay marriage by 80 percent to 12 percent.
But despite the opposition to gay marriage, the survey found the public has moved toward widespread opposition against discrimination generally against homosexuals.
The U.S. House is currently considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage. President George W. Bush, although he believes marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman, recently said that a constitutional amendment is not yet necessary.
The Massachusetts case began in 2001, when seven gay couples went to their city and town halls to obtain marriage licenses. All were denied, leading them to sue the state Department of Public Health, which administers the state's marriage laws.
A judge threw out the case in 2002, ruling that nothing in state law gives gay couples the right to marry. The couples appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court.
The plaintiffs argued that barring them from marrying a partner of the same sex denied them access to an intrinsic human experience and violated basic constitutional rights.
The state Attorney General's office, which defended the Department of Public Health, argued that neither state law nor its constitution created a right to same-sex marriage. The state also said any decision to extend marriage to same-sex partners should be made by elected lawmakers, not the courts.
cl-Libraone


Pages
Yes, let's legislate some bigotry and remember that every American is not entitled to equal rights and protection under the law.
Gee, these gay and lesbian people sure have done a horrible thing: They fell in love with someone. If you're against it, there's something seriously WRONG with you.
I just do not understand the opposition to recognizing same sex marriages.
Funny, how the age old conservative line of: We want government out of our lives, doesn't always apply.
Opposition to gay marriage equals three things: Bigotry, Hate and Fear.
>"Funny, how the age old conservative line of:
Anyway, I read a particularly amusing letter in my local Business Times op/ed last week on the issue of the homosexual lifestyle. It is a reprint so you may have seen it, but I think many of you might enjoy it.
http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2003/11/17/editorial5.html
RM
LOL!
When you are brought up with a Fear based religion instead of a Love based religion, I think you don't always have the power to think for yourself.
It simply seems illogical to me that gays and lesbians shouldn't have the same rights to marriage and a happy life as everyone else. Not that marriage is always happy by any stretch! LOL! It is just simply common sence that they should be able to marry if they should choose to.God Bless the State of Mass.
Patti
Welcome back!
Second, the courts were wrong to basically make a new law as this is up to the legislature, which is exactly the opinion taken by one of the justices of the Mass. Supreme Court, who just so happens to be a lesbian.
If the legislature made it a law, and the judiciary just upheld the law, I think there would be much less of a problem. (at least with me there would be)
I for one do not have a problem with a same sex legal union, to afford rights of guardianship, insurance etc..... it is the right thing to do, but I think that the legislative branch needs to make the laws and not the judicial branch. That is my only problem with the outcome.
By allowing the judicial branch to basically make their own new laws, we are opening a pandora's box, as then the checks and balances system would not work the way it was intended.
Pages