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: 05-20-2004
Thu, 05-20-2004 - 2:23pm
"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." cancer72283's post.


Unfortunately, even though others would like to think otherwise, we can't just turn a blind eye. That is part of the problem with our country today. Everyone wants everything to be "politically correct" and not stand up when we feel something is wrong.

I couldn't care less what a couple (hetro or otherwise) does in their own house/ bedroom. If it were as simple as that there would be no issue. To each his/her own.

However, more than the G/L couples will be affected.

I have no issue with formal legal contracts - My sister-in-law is a lesbian, and during the time my husband and I have been married (16 years) she has had 3 relationships each with an approximate 5 year cycle. (Meet, "Committ" to one another, wear wedding bands, buy a house, buy a jeep, crap hits the fan, "separate" - two bankruptcy's and 1 unequitable divison of property) - I see the need for contracts.

BIG PICTURE

What is occuring is that the Gay/ Lesbian Movement in an effort to make the mainstream public believe that this is "normal" are inundating every sector of media. Basically, we are dealing with a lot of squeeky wheels. The everyday family unit is under attack, we are led to believe that if we are not with "them" we are against them. That we are prejudiced, intolerant, bigoted. - I don't think so.

I do believe that homosexuality is wrong. Marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman. If we turn a blind eye the next thing we know brothers and sisters will be wanting to be married, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons. Where will the line be drawn. I am sure that you all would like to think that this is not possible - but who would have ever thought that this would be an issue. Why should laws be rewritten for the benefit of the few.

This should not be left up to the legal system - the legal system awarded a woman millions of dollars for spilling hot coffee between her thighs - we need commonsense.

Ultimately, I have come to believe that in order for G/L couples to believe that what they are doing is right, they want acceptance. They would probably argue otherwise, however, why "marriage" when a civil union could satisfy the legal aspect.

Let the people speak - during the national election allow a line to be added to the ballot - one vote, one person.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Thu, 05-20-2004 - 2:48pm

Oh, that's easy!


iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Thu, 05-20-2004 - 3:21pm

This should not be left up to the legal system - the legal system awarded a woman millions of dollars for spilling hot coffee between her thighs - we need commonsense.


It is also the same place where we got rid of descrimination against blacks and women despite the fact that the "majority" was against it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Thu, 05-20-2004 - 3:49pm
I thought I could resist.....I'm weak I can't, especially with such a ridiculous argument.

"It is also the same place where we got rid of discrimination against blacks and women despite the fact that the "majority" was against it. "

The majority was against discrimination. Lord have mercy your history is pitiful

"However, they are sick and tired of people treating them unequally because they believe they are morally allowed to do so."

Then what is the problem with civil unions? Sanguineprincess was right, full acceptance and validation of their lifestyle is what the GL community wants, not tolerance and equality.

"The slippery slope argument is getting quite old; there are biological, medical and moral reasons for preventing incest."

Whooooaaa. Don't you go quoting morality as a basis for outlawing incestual relationships. What is good for the goose... What about birth control, why not then. Or is sex only about procreation? Give me a biological, medical, or moral reason to outlaw incest that doesn't relate to procreation?

I've read a number of your posts and they always seem to be venomous in nature. Bigotry is a crutch you use for almost all your arguments. Very weak.

Jim





Edited 5/20/2004 3:50 pm ET ET by vader716

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Thu, 05-20-2004 - 4:27pm

Whooooaaa. Don't you go quoting morality as a basis for outlawing incestual relationships. What is good for the goose... What about birth control, why not then. Or is sex only about procreation? Give me a biological, medical, or moral reason to outlaw incest that doesn't relate to procreation?


Thats easy especially in the particularily lurid cases she mentioned about a father and daugther marrying or a mother and son marrying.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Thu, 05-20-2004 - 4:45pm
You didn't address the question. I'll try again.

Give me a biological, medical, or moral reason to outlaw incest that doesn't relate to procreation?

A 30 year old man and his 50 year old mother. Lets even add that they were separated at birth. Illegal. Tell me why?

A 30 year old man wants to marry 2 women, or men. Tell me why that should be outlawed?

Seperate but equal was referring to schooling. Granted it could have wider implications. Of course we've seen how well that worked out didn't we? Ask an inner city school child how outlawing seperate but equal helped them.

In this case sepereate but equal could be exactly that. You just couldn't call it marriage.


I'd love to see the above two examples explained about how they aren't a slippery slope.

Jim

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-20-2004
Thu, 05-20-2004 - 5:28pm
"Thats easy especially in the particularily lurid cases she mentioned about a father and daugther marrying or a mother and son marrying. The position of power in those situations are a big reason why we would never allow them to happen, no matter how much the younger person was "consenting."" - posted by gandalf grey


I agree that it is lurid. Look up Mobile, Alabama www.wpmi.com there is just such a story, father marries daughter 53 & 30(?). This is out there - where does it end. Don't think for one moment that the proponents of just such and arrangement aren't waiting in the wings to see where this goes. We can agree that it is disgusting - but what about their right to be happy????? DO you see what I mean G/L Marriage does affect more than the G/L Couples.

You can use the "bigot" word all you want, it doesn't make me one. I do not dislike G/L couples, in fact I've loved each of SIL's girlfriends. I still don't think they should be able to marry. So if that makes me a bigot - whatever.







iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-1999
Fri, 05-21-2004 - 2:40am
Thanks for the welcome. I am amazed you found me in this sea of people :)

Photobucket


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-05-2004
Fri, 05-21-2004 - 4:31am
Wow! Someone needs to hose down this message board! Temperments abound here!

How about a quick history lesson? Marriage is NOT a creation of God, but of man; and the reason for the union was not a matter of love, but of possessions. While we were still living in caves, the children were cared for by all of the clan. Which child belonged to which father was generally unknown. Man created marriage when he started collecting possessions as a means of claiming a family for inheritance purposes. This became the tradition for many centuries.

That said ~ 1) We no longer live in caves. 2) When questioned, paternity can now be resolved with a blood test. 3) People have been marrying for love for a couple of centuries now. Isn't it time to change outdated theories to marriage?

Homosexuality is not a 20th/21st century thing. (It was, however, a lot more discreet the past several centuries.) Here's something to consider... All information coming my way indicates that homosexuality is NOT a preferance. This, in turn, would indicate that God made G/L that way at birth. Has it occurred to anyone that discrimination in this arena would "appear" that you believe yourselves to be better than God?

Now, here's where I pull a Sen. John Kerry on you & do double back flips with my speech. My own preference is for all things sexual to remain discreet. I have more respect for those who don't flaunt it. It is their own business what happens behind closed doors, but, I resent it when it is displayed out in the open. Case in point: though I already knew Ellen Degeneres to be a lesbian, I only lost my respect for her AFTER she kissed k.d. lang at the awards show.

On the flip side, it sometimes takes a bold move to gain equality where it is lacking. And it IS lacking where the G/L crowd is concerned. They are looking for rights automatically granted to husbands/wives: hospital visitation, legal wills, adoption...

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Fri, 05-21-2004 - 9:31am
Your definition of marriage is incomplete. It doesn't include the need to protect family lines.

Love is not the sole reason for marrying. That is part of the problem.


All of the information going your way may indicate that homosexuality is NOT a preferance but all the information is obviously not going your way. There are numberous studies that indicate that homosexuality is not an innate genetic trait. But for the sake of arguement lets say that someone is born homosexual. People are born with tendencies to a great number of natural desires or instincts. God has laid out his direction for our lives and homosexuality doesn't fit into that direction. But we've argued that before.

That said I absolutely agree with you about public displays of affection. I don't need to see Ellen kiss someone for "political" reasons just as much as I didn't want to see Al Gore kiss his wife for political reasons. (and it ain't because he is a Democrat)

Discretion is the better part of valor or at least it use to be.


Jim.

Pages