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
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 1:45pm
***Disclaimer: To any that may be offended. This is strictly for personal education, no attack is forthcoming.***


Can I ask you a question or 2 about becomming a surrogant?

1. Are you the egg donor or just carrying the baby.

2. If you are the donor will you have any involvement once birth occurs?

3. If yes to #1 and no to #2 how does that make you feel knowing there is a person with a biological connection to you that you have no contact with.

I would think it is hard not to want to be involved.

Jim

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 1:48pm

Marriage is not defined in the US by Christianity it is simply guided by it. Marriage is a legal term set up by the US government. Religion doesn't play a part in it.


If it's a legal term, then Christianity should have nothing to do with it.


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 1:56pm
We do not live in a theocracy.

Your religious rights are not trampled simply because Christianity is the basis for our society. You are free to practice your religion but when the 2 views come into conflict it is your religion that should show deference to Christianity.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 2:06pm

History dictates otherwise.


Please back that up...because, gee, I could have sworn it had to do with abundant natural resources, hardworking individuals (which, btw, has nothing to do with religious beliefs), creativity, even "greed".


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 2:16pm

You are free to practice your religion but when the 2 views come into conflict it is your religion that should show deference to Christianity.


Why?


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-06-2004
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 2:20pm
I will be participating as a gestational surrogate. I'm just the oven. The bun will consist of sperm from one or both of the men and the egg will come from a donor.
-=Seawyt
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 3:01pm

"I'm just the oven."


That's most generous of you. All the best!

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 3:23pm
>I could have sworn it had to do with abundant natural resources, hardworking individuals >(which, btw, has nothing to do with religious beliefs), creativity, even "greed". There >are many, many factors that went into creating our nation.

Went into creating it sure....but the original context was founded on.

All of the things you mentioned could be equally applied when creating a house. The house is only as strong as its foundation. Erosion and cracks weaken the foundation of a home and it will eventually collapse. The foundation of this country is Christianity it too is being weakened by erosion and cracks. Once our foundation completely erodes so will our country.

>although it will mean the same thing>

It certainly doesn't. The United States is a superior country to say Iraq. Does that make you as a citizen superior to an Iraqi. No. More blessed sure but superior no. Christianity, at least in my view, is the same. Am I superior to a Muslim, no certainly not. Do I believe Jesus is superior to Allah, best believe it. (there is no condemnation meant by that)

>>Hardly equal.

>Please elaborate.

Christianity has been more beneficial to mankind then it has hurt it.

Actual definitions...and the one's I tend to use

Thanks for the definitions, but knew them.

The importance is that rarely are things like this taken at face value.

When the socialists speak of equality that really don't mean what you have posted.

When "some" civil rights groups speak of equality, they don't really want it. They want an advantage.

When people speak of individualism they usually pick # 5 from your definition of individualism and make the unit more important the whole.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 3:27pm
Why should it show deference. Because it is the founding beliefs of the country and its guiding force.

Scenario I come to your home for dinner. Would you welcome me and tell me to make myself at home. Probably if you are a gracious host. Should I then take it upon myself to sit at the head of the table, rearrange the furniture, change the decor? Of course not I show deference to my host. I am welcome to all that you have to offer but under your terms. I accept that when I accept your invitation.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 3:29pm
I would think you get at least that.

Very nice gesture on your part.

Any chance I could convince you to give the child to Tom & Mary instead of Tom & John?

Just kidding.

Jim

Pages