Massachusetts: Green Light Gay Marriage.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Massachusetts: Green Light Gay Marriage.
132
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

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2003
Sun, 12-07-2003 - 12:47am
Since when is it anyone's business but their own if they choose to marry a man or woman? I strongly believe that the court or constitution has a damn thing to do with it. It is a matter of personal choice. The only law that should restrict marriage should be age!!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2003
Sun, 12-07-2003 - 12:51pm
I agree that gay/lesbian marriage is strange but if its what they want who are we to judge
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-07-2003
Sun, 12-07-2003 - 6:23pm
I think the fact that the media keeps referring to the issue as "gay marriage" may be hurting idea more than anything else. The word marriage has religious connotations, whereas the term "civil union" deals directly with government entities. We can't force religious groups to accept anything and we can't sue a religious group for discrimination. Otherwise, long ago, we could have had many lawsuits against most major religions for discriminating against women. Eventually, as with other changes that were considered radical in the past (interracial marriages, divorce, etc.) they become tolerated if not accepted by a large part of the populace. There will always be those holdouts who wish to return to the early part of the twentieth century. Civil Unions, however have nothing to do with religion. I almost wish an ammendment would be passed banning civil unions b/c i thoroughly believe enough precedent has been set in lower courts that the Supreme Court would have to rule the ammendment unconstituional and then civil unions would become legal throughout the country instead of this slow state-by-state path it has taken.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2003
Mon, 12-08-2003 - 6:11am


I have been noticing a lot of references here to civil unions, religious unions and the odd "shacking up" comment. I understand that the state and the church like to keep a hold on things, but these days marriage itself is accepted to be a very personal union between two people who want to love each other and want to make some serious and solemn promises one to the other. Marriage is a commitment to someone you love. How do you legislate a commitment or stop people actually committing to one another?

I come from Australia where this debate is just as heated. One of our politicians said that marriage should be only for hetero couples becuase the institution of marriage is for the getting of children. I was incredulous when thinking of all the couples who have decided not to have children and the unfortunate people who want to and can't. By his reckoning, that would mean that they were banned from the opportunity to marry. Or if the were already married, would they have to divorce? It's starts to get nice and difficult just about there.

For all those who say that marriage should be limited to the man/woman option, I am sorry to say that I feel sorry for you! One can't push people off the bus cause they don't like them. All people all places have the right to love and honour the one they love. And since they can already commit themselves emotionally, why not let them enjoy it legally? I for one truly want to say hi to my friends Mr and Mr Smith, and Mrs and Mrs Jones!!

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-28-2003
Mon, 12-08-2003 - 8:23am
I say let them get married! Get up with the times. Do they think that if they are not allowed to get married that it will see a down slide in gay relationships? I doubt it highly!
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 12-08-2003 - 8:38am

Well said!


Welcome to the In the News board.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Mon, 12-08-2003 - 10:14am

I completely agree...and Welcome to the board!


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-27-2003
Mon, 12-08-2003 - 4:00pm
You have made a good point.

Barbara (and the one who's really in charge}

 

                               &nb
iVillage Member
Registered: 12-08-2003
Mon, 12-08-2003 - 4:49pm
I think it unconstitutional to even be discussing this in any court room regardless the state. If they want to "unfortunatly be abnormal and like their own sex", they should not be allowed to marry.

Marriage is for a man and a woman, just like having a child is for a man and woman to raise not two men or to women. Anyways, Im totally against same sex marrige and i hope it doent not get too far in court. They gay community has too many B--- S--- priviledges just because they like the same sex, already. And FYI, I dont hate gays, and I have alot gay friends but I just find it, right and i have told them to their faces many times. I dont hide my opinions.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 12-08-2003 - 4:58pm
As soon as the tax code, immigration law, inheritance law, et al. are re-written to refer to civil union, rather than marriage, I'm all for your suggestion.

Pages