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: 03-23-2003
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 3:44pm

The foundation of this country is Christianity it too is being weakened by erosion and cracks.


And this is where we disagree.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 3:49pm

Bad analogy...I am NOT a 'guest' in this country!


iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 4:12pm

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.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 4:30pm
Well this debate seem to have reached its peak and now we are engaging in a back and forth. It also seems now you too have been personally offended. I'll respond to your last 2 posts and then cool it for awhile and see what others have to say.

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.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 6:15pm

Debate is back and forth.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-06-2004
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 7:47pm
Not a chance. "Tom and Mary" have lots more choices than "Tom and John". On top of that, I think that "Tom and John" are going to make spectacular parents. That is not to say that "Tom and Mary" won't, but "Tom and John" have had to work a lot harder to make it happen.
-=Seawyt
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 11:10pm
Well I've enjoyed the debate and reading other's views. It was informative and fun. This topic has run its course for me. Thanks for having me on the board. This was the first time I've posted here at iVillage and it was very enjoyable. To any I offended I again apologize as it was not my intent. I prefer to leave things on friendly terms so I hope we all can at least agree to disagree. Maybe we'll cross paths on a different topic or board.

Cya

Jim.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-19-2004
Thu, 05-20-2004 - 1:29pm
I think that people just need to mind their own business and let others do whatever they want to with their lives. It is their life and nobody elses. Anymore the government tries to tell you how you can live as far as in who you can marry. Yeah back when a guy and girl got married and lived happily ever after. Well it don't work that way anymore. People change and are different and have different needs and desires. I think that everybodys desires and needs should be meet in someway.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-25-2004
Thu, 05-20-2004 - 2:07pm
Let's not be ignorant on this issue. Give me a break with your "marrying animals" garbage, and really, it's none of your business who someone wants to marry. Animal, themselves or otherwise. You don't know me and should never have any say so on who I prefer to marry. Man or woman or transgendered, etc. You worry about your own "morals" and let me/others worry about ours. We are not yours to make right.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-17-2004
Thu, 05-20-2004 - 2:20pm
Why is there a man and woman?

Pages