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
"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." ~ Again, I don't claim to be an expert. Which studies? Where did you get your information, & was it gleaned from one with an unbiased viewpoint?
"God has laid out his direction for our lives and homosexuality doesn't fit into that direction." ~ The Bible was written by man, not God. In these mortal bodies, we are all prone to bias, judgement, fear... The further back in time we go, the worse these traits seem to get. After all, something not generally accepted by the public was usually an offense to die over. No wonder homosexuality has only recently shown itself publicly. Back in the days the Bible was written, one didn't dare show this kind of orientation. This is man's history, not God's.
For the record: Many things in history were added to religions as a way of controlling the masses. We will all someday leave this world. What better way to control the masses than by threatening their souls? By imbedding it in religion, individual's couldn't question it lest they give up their place in heaven. This matter of homosexuality appears to be an example. (And, unfortunately, no. This cannot be proven. Many records were destroyed in the Middle Ages, & many that survived are locked away from the public.)
I agree with what someone earlier said. It is more an "ick" factor going on here than on a religious one. I am straight myself, which is probably why I prefer a little discretion in the arena. But my vote will remain in favor of G/L marriage. I don't have to be homosexual to respect other's rights to it.
www.google.com
>No wonder homosexuality has only recently shown itself publicly.
Far from correct. If you read history it was public in Ancient Greece and Rome along with other cultures.
>individual's couldn't question it lest they give up their place in heaven.
Question anything and everything. Questioning doesn't forfeit your place in heaven. Ignoring...now that is another thing...
>It is more an "ick" factor going on here than on a religious one. I am straight myself, >which is probably why I prefer a little discretion in the arena.
So it is "ick"y for you? Or are you inferring that straight people prefer discretion but homosexuals don't. Frankly there is no "ick" factor for me. I don't want to see "it" and don't think about "it". Civil Unions and privacy I could go for Gay "Marriage" and public displays of it need to be put in the same place as the 10 commandments in Alabama: A back room, locked away.
Jim
>" next thing we know brothers and sisters will be wanting to be married, fathers and daughters, mothers and sons."<
Many states already have laws on the books to prevent this occurring.
There isn't; but then again that is why this post remains unaddressed.
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elinthenews&msg=6563.197
Edited 5/21/2004 1:25 pm ET ET by vader716
Those of you who do not meet any of the above descriptions, please accept my apology here. I am sorry for expressing my communication frustrations & feelings of condemnation in an offensive way.
Here's something to ponder... Can we agree that most of our Founding Fathers immigrated from prominently Christian-based countries? If so, why would we feel a need to protect a freedom for an already prominent religion? Christianity didn't need protecting! Our Founding Fathers may have based our Constitution on the 10 Commandments (a good guide line for any set of laws), but they did not base it on Christianity!
>Which studies?
www.google.com
Okay...can you provide links to the information that you use to base your opinions on?
>Can we agree that most of our Founding Fathers immigrated from prominently Christian->based countries?
Sorry I can't. The FF weren't protecting Christianity. The FF weren't involved in settling this country. 1492 vs 1776. This country was settled patially because certain sects of Christianity were intollerant of any other interpretation. I assure you though George didn't flee England because he wanted to protect Christianity. oops that sounded like a condemnation...oh well.
Jim
We can see here why religion is a bad subject for debate. We all get "passionate"!
You may need to do what I do. EDIT before you post! Is there any way you can restate what you have to say to make your statements less offensive? I have no problem with rebuttals. I DO have a problem with attacks. We all do, including you. (It's in our nature.) When you have shared your "knowledge" with us, you were also quick to claim in some way that your "opponent" didn't know what he was talking about. (That has been viewed by us all as an attack.)
Case in point: You acknowledged my statement that all information coming my way indicated that homosexuality is not a preference. You were quick to point out, however, that "obviously" I didn't have all the information I needed to form that opinion. Your choice of words was an attack.
I don't see how that is an attack. People tend to glean what they want from a post.
In the case above:
It sounds as if you are well read with regards to studies showing homosexuality to be genetic. Yet there are countless studies showing the opposite and countless others that fall in the middle. You have plenty of information to support your view if you discount or ignore evidence to the contrary. I fail to see how someone could form an opinion on s subject and state that all the information points this way when many studies site other studies as points of contention. This alone compels me to read the counterpoints to understand both sides of an issue prior to forming an opinion.
However could I view the following statement as an attack?
"When you have shared your "knowledge" with us..."
The quotes around knowledge call into question all that I "know" and dismisses it. Could I view that as a personal attack? Sure. Do I? Not really. I take into account the strength of someone's position and weight those statements accordingly.
"That has been viewed by us all as an attack"
I'm sure too that as a first time poster to these boards the moderators would have chastised me for personal attacks if they were to have occurred. Speaking for the whole is something that is difficult to do.
I respect those who have posted point and counter point with me more so than most because:
1. They are passionate about their beliefs, at least enough to defend them in a public forum.
2. For the most part people who engage in debate are intelligent people with different views.
3. I don't have all the answers so debate is great. I have no problem changing my views if facts can support that I am wrong.
4. I am the type that can have a heated, loud, knock down drag out debate/arguement about something and then go to the lunch with that same person. I love debate, sometimes I can seem a bit "bombastic" because I believe in my views so passionately. I can get carried away and if I have you have my sincere apology. In fact next time you're in maryland a coffee or lunch is on me. We can be bombastic and attacking over coffee at starbucks.
My standard method of posting is to read the post. Open a word processor, type my response, edit, re-edit and then copy paste. I do self edit to avoid coming off as attacking because I know sensitivity levels are different for different people. However, sometimes I fail because I am perhaps not as sensitive as I should be. I'll chalk that up to being a far right wing nut or bigot (as I have been called here). I'm working on that compassionate conservative thing...but I do fail at times.
Jim
Edited 5/21/2004 3:54 pm ET ET by vader716
Edited 5/21/2004 3:54 pm ET ET by vader716
<<>>
Really - to include the 1178 *rights* that you are entitled to just because you're not homosexual and unable to marry?
Marriage is a fundamental *right* of humanity - moral, religious and societal.
________________________________________________
"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B
Pages