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: 10-28-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 3:38pm
I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. There are no morals in this country anymore -- there are no traditions. Every tradition I grew up with have been thrown out the window all because its not politically correct anymore. Children can't say the Pledge of Allegiance in school anymore, your town can't put out a manger because someone will be offended, children have no respect for their teachers anymore because they now a teacher can't reprimand them in any way (parents can't even reprimand their own children for fear a neighbor will call the authorities). I'm not saying that nothing should change from the past, because obviously there are somethings in society that need change, but IMO a marriage is only between a man and a woman. I personally don't care what two grown people do in their own homes, I just don't want to be exposed to it and I certainly don't want my children exposed to it. We were camping in a state park last week and two guy men were kissing each other in front of my children - it was disgusting (I don't want to see anyone kissing in front of me, let along two men). Why do they have to flaunt themselves in front of children????

Society has not changed for the better in the last 20 years or so, it has only gotten worse and I blame groups like the ACLU for this. Since when does having a manger up in your community a crime -- I'm sorry if Atheists are offended, just don't look at it. I'm sorry if your child is an Atheist and doesn't want to hear the Pledge of Allegience, go out of the room when it is being said. Why should everyone suffer for this one individual or group. It is really sad.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 3:45pm
Well I'll take up the side of the "religious right" in this debate.

Same Sex Marriage is wrong. I could argue the Biblical stance on it but it doesn't matter in a secular government. However, it is important to remember that the USA is a religious country. Are foundation is built on a Judeo-Christian belief system. We allow the freedom of religion but do not free ourselves or our government from it. The Separation of Church and State does not exist in the Constitution nor was there ever intent to separate Christianity from the US Government. That is the result of an activist court system. Alas that is the subject for another debate.

It is quite easy to call people who are against same-sex marriage narrow minded or prejudicial. You attack the person not the argument. I will refrain from such tactics.

Marriage has been understood to represent the joining of a man and a woman together for both the good of themselves, their family and their society. Marriage has always been the cornerstone for a strong family and community. It is a building block for the family. It provides a strong stable environment to raise children. These things are not specific to American culture, or western civilization. It goes back for 1000s of years. Marriage is nothing new.

What is new is this attempt to redefine marriage as the union of two people who are committed to each other and love each other and want society to officially recognize them as spouses. If I can summarize the argument for gay marriage it is essentially that it is "unconstitutional" to discriminate simply because they happen to be the same gender. That 2 people of the same gender can equally meet the definition I have laid out above and that it is discriminatory to stop these marriages. I even heard that it shouldn't be decided on a ballot but in the courts.

These arguments are of course wrong.

1. There is no Constitutional (federal level) right to gay marriage. Think so? Show me and I'll show you why there isn't.

2. Gay marriages are less stable than traditional ones. Lay aside the issue of monogamy. Homosexuals and their lifestyle will never be accepted as normal. When between 96 & 98% of society is heterosexual there will never be wide spread acceptance. Less acceptance alone provides for more difficulties and instability.

3. Without outside interference show me one gay couple capable of raising a family.


Homosexuals do not have the right to compare their “plight” with that of Women’s rights or racial discrimination.

Oh and Biblically….its wrong.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 3:47pm
They get defensive when someone religious disagrees with them because they inherently know what they are doing is against God's will and they have guilt and they will argue until they are blue in the face because they need to talk themselves into believing what they are doing is right.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 3:47pm

<<>>


Maybe because they don't have a constitution that GUARANTEES equality for everyone?


You're comparing apples and oranges - and COMPLETELY avoiding the real issue.

________________________________________________


"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- Bob Day, Marriage Equality Rally, Rochester NY

Help in the fight against a constitutional amendment!


<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

________________________________________________

"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 3:54pm

<<>>


You are wrong - they are still saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

________________________________________________

"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-28-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 3:58pm
First of all, I wouldn't live in that kind of village and if I did, I would know that I lived in a village where everyone was different than me, than I would accept it. I would be the outside and I would never expect them all to change because of my. I would move to where I felt welcome.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 3:58pm
"Yet you live in a country where ALL are guaranteed freedom OF religion which also equates to freedom FROM religion?"


You are kidding right? Freedom of and from are two totally different things. Grab the Constitution, which so reverently throw up as protection and read it. It is definitely of not from. And they are far from equal

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 3:59pm
It is NOT my Responsiblity to accept anything that I do not agree with. It IS my responsibility to uphold my own morals and not back down just because someone doesn't agree with me. I believe homosexuality is BIBLICALLY denounced. And that is according to the King James Version of the Bible, so don't tell me about how your bible or religious doctrine doesn't state that. If you believe it's okay for gays to 'do their thing', than good for you. I Do NOT agree with that.

I believe in marriage that is between a man and woman. That is my belief. I believe that respect is something that is earned. Not freely given. Not assumed. Earned. If gays want respect of the courts, citizens, law-makers, religious leaders, than earn it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 4:01pm
AMEN!
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 4:04pm
Where in the Bible does it say that a woman is less than a man? I remember reading that she is to be his 'helpmate', his friend, lover, mother of his children, he is to 'cling to her only'. But I don't remember she is less...

Pages