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: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 4:57pm

Don't bother, because you're only doing so:


a) to get my goat or;


b) make yourself feel better.


Neither of which is very Christian.

________________________________________________


"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: 05-18-2004
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 5:21pm
Equal protection under the law.

The Federal Government passed the Defense of Marriage Act which provided 2 things.

"First, it provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other

State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." "

Second, it defines the words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law. It clearly defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It was also signed by the great defender of the religious right -- Bill Clinton.

The Constitution guarantees that this law will be equally applied. So apply it and then file that 1040 jointly with john and joe and see how far you get.

There are numerous studies that show the % is closer to 2-4%. You're 10-15 is grossly inflated to support your belief and is based primarily on Kinsley's fatally flawed research.

Raise: To cause to arise, appear, or exist.

I stand by my words but semantics isn't a battle you want with me is it?

Remarrying, while its cause divorce is certainly a major cause of our society's problem still leaves the basic blocks in place. It certainly is less preferable than "to death do us part" though.

Procreation was only a part of my argument. Albeit and important one if you want to see our society continue to flourish.

On a separate note:

Don't quote Jesus and his actions and words in counter arguments when I'm sure you don't know the context of the "stories" you have heard.

My debate isn't with you. Your views could not be swayed if God himself walked in and said you were wrong. The benefit of this debate is to show the fallacy and weakness of your belief system and how it will crumble under the weight of truth.

The left assumes that all belief systems are equal simply because they are permitted in the country. Moral superiority does exist. The morals taught in the Bible both OT and NT are superior to the beliefs of Hinduism, Islamism, Wicca, or any other belief system. Our country WAS founded on them. It is a guiding principal to the success of this country. We have a strong Christian heritage and no amount of banter can refute that. It you don't believe in our moral superiority that is fine. We allow you to belief what you want. Don’t expect us to accept your "hey this works for me so accept it" belief system and run with it.

Good luck in your battle against the 97% of the rest of the country: white, black, male and female.

Jim

Avatar for baileyhouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 5:34pm
>>>Why should everyone suffer for this one individual or group. It is really sad.<<<

EXACTLY...Why should non Christians be exposed to something they don't believe in..Thanks for making your own arguement...FYI the origional Pledge of Allegiance didn't mention God, maybe we should just go back to that one...

Avatar for baileyhouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 5:49pm
Sorry but there is a lot to disagree with in regards to how you see the way this country was founded but maybe this site will help clear some of it up for you.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/toc.htm

Avatar for baileyhouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 6:01pm
>>>I personally view the Bible as the greatest work of fiction man has ever created.<<<

Hey Janna did you steal that Phrase from my DH? He says that all the time..And he is the kindest man I know. You can live the good "Christian" life without believing in God. He is living proof.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 6:15pm
I was certainly not critisizing your son, I was critisizing the people who said those things who are also some (not all) of the people who are on your side fighting against gay marriage.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-10-2004
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 7:09pm
It's not your fault...the one's who are quick to read your response and your opinions read it in their way so they can come back and yell at you with anger and bitterness. It happens here a lot especially if you state your opinion and it doesn't match theirs. They read it any way they can even if it isn't how you intended it. You don't have a right to your opionion yet they do, it's their everyday philosophy on these boards.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 7:21pm
Well I certainly can't intelligently reply to a web page that is 100s of pages long with multiple writers, opinions and viewpoints. On a point by point basis debate is fun and informative. Your post simply dilutes the arguement with sheer volume. I don't know where to begin so I won't. I could post an equivilant page with links and articles from people with opinions close to mine but it serves no purpose nor does your reply.

Post your own beliefs and understandings and we can go from there until then my beliefs remain unchanged, just like my God.

Jim




Edited 5/18/2004 7:21 pm ET ET by vader716

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 8:29pm

The legalization of gay marriages will definately slow the population increase, seeing as though they cannot NATURALLY reproduce, but hey science has a way of making all things possible!


I have to jump in here because I can't even begin to understand that statement.


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 8:32pm
I know of no science that would allow a same sex couple to have "their own biological children". Do you mean one woman is the biological mother and the other woman is along for the ride? It Doesn't make it their biological child now does it?

Of course they aren't naturally reproducing. They are reproducing and it is their own biological child but their isn't anything natural about it.

Jim




Edited 5/18/2004 8:33 pm ET ET by vader716

Pages