Massachusetts to hold same-sex weddings
Find a Conversation
| 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
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
The foundation of this country is Christianity it too is being weakened by erosion and cracks.
And this is where we disagree.
Bad analogy...I am NOT a 'guest' in this country!
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.
This analogy is really quite offensive.
James
janderson_ny@yahoo.com
CL Ask A Guy
Freedom was the driving force to seek out a new land. Again not the foundation that the country was built on.
While I certainly do not profess to know a great deal about Islam I do know what you refer to. I am aware that Islam's Allah is equal to the Jewish/Christian God the comment was more an example off the fly.
Then why have you created different ones?
Because as I said...people apply multiple meanings to words....
>And this is where we differ yet again. In order for the 'whole' to be strong, it needs >the individualism. If everyone were alike (which is 'safe' and 'orderly'), then >the 'whole' would be weak.
The problem is that we no longer have a melting pot were we all bring are strengths and weaknesses together blend them together and create a stronger whole. Instead we want to remain individual cultures living together as one. It doesnt work, never has and never will. Sorry if history doesn't agree with your premise.
>you say that because my belief system has a differing view, we should 'defer' to the >Christian one (as that is the 'larger' group), right? Are you saying that in order for >me to be truly treated 'equally', I must become Christian?
Of course not. You don't need to become Christian, you need to understand that Christianity is or was the doctrine that guides this country and when opposing viewpoints meet; the founding principals of the country must prevail.
The "house" was an representation of immigration to this country. 1690s is fine but the country was still a seperate group of colonies then subjected to the mother country's rule. You didn't have to be Christian to become a citize of the new country. You were free to practice your religion providing it fell within the constraints of the laws setup by the new government.
Debate is back and forth.
http://www.hrc.org/millionformarriage
http://www.dontamend.com
Cya
Jim.
Pages