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
<<>>
And violate the very tenets that this country was founded on?
________________________________________________
"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B
<<>>
So now you KNOW what I want better than I do?
________________________________________________
"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B
<<>>
And how, exactly, is that "flaunting it" and Adrian Brophy planting a lip-lock on Halle Barry (?) at the Academy Awards NOT "flaunting" HIS sexuality?
________________________________________________
"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B
<<<1. Why does a civil union not grant the equality you seek? >>>
If the law ALLOWED the 1178 *rights* afforded to married heterosexuals, I wouldn't give a rat's patoot WHAT you called it.
<<<2. Give me a biological, medical, or moral reason to outlaw incest that doesn't relate to procreation?>>>
Procreation IS the primary reason that incest is illegal.
________________________________________________
"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B
You apparently missed the quotations around the "humanitarian" comment I made.
________________________________________________
"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B
**********
Hope this helps with your confusion regarding the separation of church and state.
**********
There is no confusion. It simply says the government can’t infringe on your rights to practice your religion. It does NOT say the government is to be free of religion. Your quote helps clarify that, it certainly doesn’t support your contention.
**********
You only short-change kids when you stick video tapes into the VCR and use them to "baby-sit" kids. I've seen plenty of two-parent families with messed up kids...gays, single parent families, or adoptive parents don't have a lock on it, my friend. Kids get short-changed by bad parenting, not quantities and genders of parents.
**********
Again you would be in error. Quantities and genders do affect children. Two moms or two dads is not as healthy as a mom and dad. You can argue this until the cows come home but it doesn’t change the truth. Homosexuality is not a natural environment to raise children in. Nature couldn’t create that environment. If it helps you deal with your lifestyle believe what you want.
**********
<<>>
Semantics - what's the difference?
**********
Define: To state the precise meaning of
1. Guide: To serve as a guide for; conduct.
2. To direct the course of; steer: guide a ship through a channel.
3. To exert control or influence over.
4. To supervise the training or education of.
Does this make it clearer for you?
**********
That arrogant statement just screams VOLUMES on what's truly wrong with this country today.
**********
What’s that? That traditionally minded people are getting tired of having the traditional values that made this country so great trampled on daily? The most intolerant and bigoted people around are leftist who have no use for anyone or anything that doesn’t support their agenda. They dismiss conservative people as bigots, close minded, unintelligent, and inflexible, yet they are exactly what they call others.
*********
Well then, given that analogy, Christianity should show deference to all NATIVE AMERICAN spirituality. Instead of one nation "under God," it should be one nation "under the Great Spirits."
*********
Sorry doesn’t ring add up. Were this an Indian nation I would agree. I didn’t make the “we were here first��� argument. I said: This is our culture; you are welcome to come and assimilate yourselves into it. We are not 15 cultures in one, we are one.
***********
That the masses should not have the liberty to oppress the lesser numbers? Ring any bells?
***********
How about the minorities oppressing the majority through activist courts?
***************
<<>>
And arrogance regarding the superiority of Christianity is yours. What's your point?
***************
Well assume I am arrogant. Fine. Now explain how you justify calling every person who disagrees with you a bigot?
*************
If the law ALLOWED the 1178 *rights* afforded to married heterosexuals, I wouldn't give a rat's patoot WHAT you called it.
*************
Great so I’ll put you down as an advocate for Civil unions. Welcome to the fold.
*****************
Also, the laws don't exist with every "..but what if" extremist notion that people can dream up.
*****************
Exactly. You setup a standard and enforce it. Now once you allow for X then Y has an equal claim, then Z, etc.
*****************
that they COULD sue for the right to marry
*****************
What make you think it is a could….its only a matter of time.
*****************
I do not oppose polygamy
*****************
Ok so in your book: homosexual marriage is fine. Polygamy is fine. Incestial marriage is fine provided that procreation isn’t possible. Now we are getting somewhere. Basically the only law that could be set up to convern marriage is that the parties must be alive. You see once you allow it for one you must allow it for all. To do otherwise is discrimination, at least by your argument. Sorry I ain’t buying.
************************
When you're intending to shoot someone and you ask them if they believe in God and THEN tell them to start praying, it's for psychological effect - they know they're going to die, and you've done the "humanitarian" thing by allowing them to make peace with God before you kill them.
*************************
************************
You apparently missed the quotations around the "humanitarian" comment I made. You apparently CHOSE to misrepresent what I said because when you use quotations around a word as I did there, it's typically meant as a PLAY on words. But you can go ahead and keep twisting what I've said into your own "christian" (and yes, I used THAT word VERY loosely, too) perspective.
The girl wasn't shot because she was Christian - they USED the question to terrorize her, that's all.
************************
The scenario that you laid out is above, not me. Your choice lessens the severity of the execution because they got to pray. Your scenario not mine.
I’ve included your entire quote, unchanged. I didn’t misrepresent anything.
Killing a Christian, a Black, a Muslim, a Homosexual is the EXACT SAME THING. Hate crime legislation (which is what started this one) places a greater value on certain murders because of the “hate” that was involved in the crime. That is a sick mentality. If someone supports hate crime legislation there is either a lack of understanding of the law or they are sick people who value some more than others.
I think it was Bob Day who once said “If you don’t stand up for something, you’ll lie down for anything.” Right he is. I’ll be standing here defending my beliefs. Should the left win and 50 years from now we live in a dictatorship, I’ll be able to say “See I told you so”.
Most people who support Hate Crimes are sick of people who get away with or are over/under penalized for a crime because of the bigotry that exists in this nation.
James
janderson_ny@yahoo.com
CL Ask A Guy
Pages