Massachusetts to hold same-sex weddings

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Massachusetts to hold same-sex weddings
229
Sun, 05-16-2004 - 12:31pm

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Gay%20Marriage%20New%20Era


Sunday, May 16, 2004 · Last updated 6:34 a.m. PT


Massachusetts to hold same-sex weddings    Rings 


By DAVID CRARY
AP NATIONAL WRITER


For better or for worse, depending on which side of the ideological aisle one chooses, a divided America crosses a historic threshold Monday as state-approved marriages of same-sex couples take place for the first time.


Promised a waiver of the normal three-day waiting period, the seven gay and lesbian couples who successfully sued for marriage rights in Massachusetts will wed before relatives, friends and supporters in Boston and three other towns. The United States will become just the fourth country in the world where same-sex couples can tie the knot.


The couples' jubilation will be shared by gay-rights advocates across the country, including many in states such as New York, California, Washington and New Jersey where comparable lawsuits are moving forward.


"This isn't just one historic moment in Massachusetts," said Kevin Cathcart, executive director of the gay-rights group Lambda Legal. "It's the start of what will be a long period of progress and breakthroughs, with gay couples in other states also winning the right to marry."


For foes of gay marriage, Monday's weddings represent a stinging defeat - but one they hope will be reversed by a backlash among politicians and voters nationwide.


"What I'm starting to see is people who are apolitical, who never got involved before, saying, 'This is too much - we don't want same-sex marriage foisted on us,'" said Mathew Staver, president of a Florida-based legal group, Liberty Counsel, that is opposing gay marriage in numerous court cases.


Both sides in the debate expect the issue to figure prominently in the November election, with Massachusetts serving as a rallying cry and alarm bell.


Candidates for Congress will face pressure to explain their position on a proposed federal constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. Voters in Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Missouri and Utah - and probably several other states - will consider similar amendments to their state constitutions.


"It will be a national referendum about gays and gay marriage," said Rod McKenzie of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "We're the underdog when it comes to all these ballot measures - the scale is bigger than we've ever had to deal with."


In states with the ballot measures, divisive campaigns already are underway.


An Oklahoma gay-rights group, for example, took out newspaper ads last week showing an outline of the state with "Closed" stamped over it. The ad contended that businesses would leave - or stay away - if voters approved the constitutional ban on gay marriage.


State Sen. James Williamson, a Republican from Tulsa, called the ad outrageous and predicted that a ban would attract new businesses.


"There is a real hunger for a return to traditional values and for leaders who will draw a line in the sand to help stop the moral decay of this country," he said.


Nationwide, both sides are planning marches and rallies over the coming week - among them, pro-gay marriage events in Iowa City, Iowa, and Las Cruces, N.M., and a "Not on My Watch" rally in Arlington, Texas, for pastors opposed to gay marriage.


Also following the Massachusetts events with interest will be the thousands of gay couples who married in recent months with the encouragement of local officials in San Francisco, Portland, Ore., and a handful of other municipalities.


Those marriages are clouded by varying degrees of legal uncertainty, and even in Massachusetts there is a possibility that voters in 2006 could jeopardize the impending marriages by approving a constitutional ban.


Katie Potter, a Portland policewoman who married partner Pam Moen in March, said she was delighted by the Massachusetts developments yet worried that it could take years for marriage rights to extend nationally.


"It's important for my two children to be able to say, 'My parents are married,'" Potter said.


Anti-gay marriage activists have no sympathy for such arguments.


"If we move down the road to legalizing marriage for unnatural homosexual couples, it will lead to an explosion of intentionally motherless or fatherless households," said Dave Smith of the Indiana Family Institute. "That is a radical social experiment that will place children in harm's way."


Though opinion polls show that most Americans oppose gay marriage, the rate of acceptance is much higher among people under 30 - for the younger generation, polls show a roughly even split on the issue.


"There's an absolute inevitability there," said Lambda Legal's Cathcart. "There's no reason to think the next generation of young people will go backward."


Mathew Staver, referring to the same demographic trends, said the next 18 months would be critical for gay-marriage foes.


"The window is now to pursue a federal marriage amendment that would put a halt to this nonsensical patchwork of litigation," said the Liberty Counsel attorney.


Even if many Americans wish otherwise, Massachusetts, as of Monday, will join the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada's three most populous provinces as the only places worldwide where gays can marry, though the rest of Canada expected to follow soon.


In the Netherlands, which pioneered gay marriage three years ago, the practice now stirs little controversy. Cheryl Jacques, a former Massachusetts legislator who now heads the Human Rights Campaign, a major gay-rights group, hopes her compatriots eventually emulate the Dutch.


"For the vast majority of Americans, Monday will be a completely ordinary day - nothing's going to change," she said. "But for some Americans in Massachusetts - gay and lesbian families - it will be a truly historic day, when their families will be made stronger and their children will become safer."


"I'm very proud of my state," Jacques added. "Massachusetts is going to teach the rest of the country a lesson - equality doesn't hurt anyone."


---


Lambda Legal: http://www.lambdalegal.org/


Liberty Counsel: http://www.lc.org/





cl-nwtreehugger


Community Leader:  In The News & Sports Talk
I can also be found at Washington, TV Shows & QOTW


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 10:22am
I believe in total equality for everyone. What I have a problem with are those individuals who want more than the next person. Case in point? Why do the gay couples in Mass get to waive the 3 day waiting period? That's not equality. That's being 'politically correct'. Because, God forbid (and I do believe in God), we should upset someone who is of a minority. That includes color, religion, sexual preferrence, or political affiliation. If gays want to marry, let them go by the same rules as the rest of us. If gays want children, they should get no special preferrence when it comes to adoption or conception. If gays want people to accept them, they should have to learn to deal with those who have a problem with their life style. Not everyone thinks the same, not everyone agrees, not everyone IS the same.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 10:37am

<<<I am totally against it. I believe there were a man and woman put on this earth for a reason. I am not religious at all, so it has nothing to do with religion for me. I think our country has become corrupted of its moral values, due to some instances as these.>>>


Then why aren't you screaming for a Constitutional amendment that would make adultery a crime?


Why aren't you screaming for a Constitutional amendment that would make divorce illegal?


Why do you think that immorality rests on the shoulders of two same-sex people committed to each other and wanting to be permanently bound to each other?


What makes you think that discrimination against the GLBT community, where marriage is concerned, will "uphold the moral values" of this nation?

________________________________________________

"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 10:40am

<<>>


Poor argument - an one that's based on incomplete reading.


These gay couples don't "get" to waive the 3 day waiting period.


ANY couple can choose to go to court to have the 3 day waiting period waived - AFTER they show sufficient cause to have it waived.

________________________________________________

"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-22-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 11:30am
I would like to expand on what you have written. There are people who think abortion is immoral. There are people who think sterility is immoral. There are people who think differently from others. I am not sure how I feel, but it isn't up to me. If two people who happen to be of the same sex become a family and have children and want the family unit to be "married" it's their choice. There would probably be less divorce than in the heterosexual couples who marry at the same time. What makes a marriage? Being of the same sex? Having the same value system? Dedication to working on the relationship? I have been married 23 years so I can speak of marriage. The day I got married, I know of three other couples who did also. Out of the four of us, two of us are still married. It takes commitment and who is to say that homosexuals take their commitment less seriously than heterosexuals--not me from what I've seen of heterosexuals. My motto is live and let live. If you don't like it, lump it. Once you let the cat out of the bag, good luck putting it back in.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-22-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 11:34am
Right on, sister-friend! Give 'em Hell. It's amazing to me how people can pick and choose what they will or will not accept and expect the rest of us to go along with them. If we don't they get angry and all rationality goes out the window.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 12:25pm

believe in total equality for everyone. What I have a problem with are those individuals who want more than the next person. Case in point? Why do the gay couples in Mass get to waive the 3 day waiting period?


Ok, you might want to read a bit before making such a rant, first of all there is a way for EVERYONE in Mass to waive the three day period it is just an added fee which some decided to pay.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-30-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 12:59pm
I know I am going to get screamed at for my opinion here, but thats ok. I have to say that i am totally against legalizing gay marriages, for both personal and spiritual reasons. I was raised in church and dad is a pastor, so for spiritual reasons, I am against this because the Bible plainly states its a sin and that is it wrong. You can argue that by asking if i have followed every rule in the Bible and if i have obeyed ever commandment, and my answer is No, i am not perfect, but i have asked for forgiveness, and turned away from the lifestyle i used to live, do i still make mistakes and "sin" yes, but i do my best to not repeat the same mistakes over agian.



I am against this personally because 1. I feel its immoral, and 2. this opens up all kinds of new doors!!!

What will the courts do when someone decides they want to marry themselves because they have multiple personalities? They medically, I think, are concidered 2 or 4 seperate individuals whether they are the same sex or not, will one be able to marry oneself?? OR if an idividual who takes a liking to their animal, gross as that is, it happens, will they be able to marry that animal, which according to some animal rights activist should be concidered human and treated just the same!?!?

Where will America draw the line, if all are to be treated equal?

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 1:09pm

OR if an idividual who takes a liking to their animal, gross as that is, it happens, will they be able to marry that animal, which according to some animal rights activist should be concidered human and treated just the same!?!?


And here I thought Whren's post was bad, you are now comparing gay couples to someone sleeping with animals.


Your morals and values should not be thrust upon someone else, two people come together in love and commitment should never be compared to a man raping some poor animal for his perverse amusement.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-30-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 1:30pm
I never said that the Bible is this countries constituion, it is mine and with this new law, its only becoming more real. I do think that women should stay home and raise the children they help create, if their current financial situation should allow them to. In today's world this is almost impossible! Most cannot survive on one income, the cost of living is too high. Keep mind, things are much different NOW than what they were then, in many many many ways, this just being one!

>>Your morals and values should not be thrust upon someone else, two people come together in love and commitment should never be compared to a man raping some poor animal for his perverse amusement. The fact that you can't understand the difference makes me wonder exactly how you were raised.<<

Understanding the difference is very easily done, its a comparison being made, and if one is allowed to marry one of the same sex, why shouldnt one be able to marry another of a different breed, I never mentioned sex in the comparison, this just makes them eligible for the few perks us married people have. Quite frankly i dont believe i am thrusting my morals and values on anyone, I am simply stating my opinion here and how i feel towards the whole situation, which i believe is what boards such as these are for. I am not getting upset or angry or even close to such when you combat my veiws or opinions, but it does seem just the opposite for you! I have dont have to defend what i believe, it will always remain the same whether you or any one else shares my beliefs is solely up to them. I can't force you or anyone to change how you feel or what you believe, all i can do is share my feelings, and hope to leave a positive impact. I have never been rude or mean to any one that i know who is gay or lesbian, they are people too, That i agree with, but i dont have to agree with their lifestyle or them being allowed to marry!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 1:38pm

<<>>


I've heard this same BS argument so many times it's not funny.


A marriage can only be entered into by two people who are capable of giving "informed consent."

________________________________________________

"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B

Pages