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
So here's the clincher.... gay/lesbians will be allowed to marry in Massachussets, and it will be considered a legal marriage insofar as needing a divorce, getting married to another person, alimony, etc. HOWEVER the legal rights that are essentially the backbone of the issue will STILL be witheld from gay/lesbian married couples! If any business, state, or the federal government can choose whether or not to treat your marriage as one, then doesn't that defeat the purpose? If I marry my partner, I should expect to be able to write down on my tax forms that I am married. If we are married and one of us chooses to take care of the home instead of working, that one of us should be able to expect to receive Medicare benefits based on the spouse's work history, as do heterosexual couples. I'm thouroughly disgusted with the fact that so many people seem to truly believe that their own biblical views and morals have a right to be involved in legal affairs. Our laws may have a standing on what is "morally wrong" in the sense of criminal acts.. .but homosexuality does not fall in that category - homosexuality is NOT a crime! Should our constitution be able to dictate whether we celebrate Christmas or Hannukah or any other religious rite based on what a certain percentage of Americans believe to be morally correct? Why then should a certain percentage of our population be able to deny ME marriage privileges and ALL that goes with it?
faerieshadow
I believe "marriage" is simply a commitment between two people to love one other unconditionally for all eternity.
I oppose the use of the word "gay" to define homosexuality.
I also oppose the governments' involvement in marriages what-so-ever, from obtaining a license and having it registered, to the certificate of divorce that comes from the failure of misunderstanding "commitment" and "unconditional"
Wish I had time to read all the posts.
A most eloquent post! Thank you.
Welcome to the "In the News" board.

cl-Libraone
Hi Bluey & welcome to the "In the News" board.
I agree with you!
cl-Libraone
Bush would back constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/17/bush.gay.marriage/index.html
While calling for tolerance, President Bush said Tuesday he would support a constitutional amendment, if one is needed, that defines marriage as being between a man and woman.
"If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that," Bush told ABC's Diane Sawyer.
The president -- in an apparent nod to some recognition of gay civil unions -- also said it would be the position of his administration that "whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state."
Overturning the state's ban on same-sex marriages, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in November cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to wed, ruling that government attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right.
The court gave state lawmakers six months to craft a way for gay couples to marry.
The president criticized the court, saying it had overstepped its bounds.
"It was a very activist court in making the decision it made," Bush said. "As you know, I'm a person who believes in judicial restraint, as opposed to judicial activism that takes the place of the Legislative Branch."
Bush said a constitutional amendment will be needed if "judicial rulings undermine the sanctity of marriage."
In October, Bush said administration lawyers were looking for some way to legally limit marriage to heterosexuals.
Asked by Sawyer if gays were sinners, Bush responded: "We're all sinners. We're all sinners."
"No distinction?" she queried.
"I think we're all sinners. One of my favorite Bible verses says, 'Why would I take a speck out of your eye when I have a log in my own?' And having said that, however, I do believe in the sanctity of marriage. But I don't see that as conflict with being a tolerant person or an understanding person."
Bush counts many conservative Christians and Christian groups among his supporters.
cl-Libraone
This is so backward.
New Jersey Approves Bill on Gay Couple Benefits.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107913,00.html
The state Senate approved a bill Thursday to give same-sex couples many of the rights available to legally married couples, and the governor is expected to sign it into law, making New Jersey the fifth state to recognize domestic partners.
Gay and lesbian advocates cheered, hugged and some openly wept as senators voted. "I absolutely kissed the floor," said Steven Goldstein, campaign manager of
Conservative groups vowed to fight the law in court. John Tomicki, executive director of the
Pages