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: 05-18-2004
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 11:08pm
Hello everyone,

I just wanted to add my opinion in here. I am a married straight woman who happens to think that it would be wrong for me to judge anyone for anything that does not hurt others. If two people love one another and choose to devote themselves to life as a couple, then who am I to tell them they cannot? I have no right to tell anyone how to live their lives. There are many things that I do not agree with myself, but would never ever tell someone "You can't do that!" (Certain acts like murder that harm others are exempt from this of course). Personally, I believe that homosexuality is NOT a sin or a crime against God and nature. I believe that people are born with their sexuality inherent. I have many gay and lesbian friends and none of them "chose" to be that way. No one would choose a life of discrimination. Well, at least no one that I know would. The religious beliefs of a few or even of many should not be inflicted upon everyone. The freedom of religion also allows for people to choose to have no religion at all.

Marriage did start out as a religious joining of two people, though secular or civil marriage is very common these days. One of my religion professors in college gave me the best definition of marriage that I have ever heard. Marriage is simply the consummation of true love. Only God and the couple involved know when a marriage exists. Having a piece of paper or a ceremony does not make you married. The love and commitment of two people does. The ceremony is simply a way of announcing the union to the community and celebrating it.

This fight for same-sex marriage is a fight for rights. Everyone should have the same rights in my opinion. Married couples have so many benefits that single people do not. I had one friend, a lesbian, tell me that she doesn't care if they call it marriage, she doesn't care if they call it a civil union, she doesn't care if they call it Jello as long as she is allowed the right to visit her wife in the hospital if she were ill.

I know that some Christians will never see my point. I know some non-Christians will never see my point. I don't want to argue with anyone, this is just my opinion, and thanks to the Constitution I am allowed to give it. With that said I believe that by ammending a document that was created to give us freedom and equality in order to discriminate against certain people is WRONG. That, to me, takes away the whole meaning of the Constitution and just makes it a weapon for people to use against others. What a can of worms that would open. I don't even want to think about what other ammendments might take place if the moral majority decided to push them. That scares me and I start to worry about the world my children will be raised in if that happens.

Okay, this is my favorite bible verse, and I will use it to point out a fact. Love has no boundaries. St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians wrote this of how you can tell love. "Love is patient, Love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails." "And even now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love."

So, in my personal interpretation, this is the criteria for if something is truly love or not, and if it is love, then how can it possibly be bad?

-- Nancy

Image hosted by Photobucket.comImage hosted by Photobucket.com
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 11:12pm
I am happy for people who finally find their true love. Regardless of the sex. My moto has always been "whatever floats your boat", however I do want to say something to all those wonderful happy couples...Don't have kids!! I teach school and as a society (ouch) we are producing some screwed up kids with all of this Free Choice stuff. I am all for you to be happy and loving to each other, but don't dump your beliefs on an innocent kid. I don't know how well adjusted you think they are, but they are NOT ready for dealing with same-sex marriages. I still have kids who cry because they look different from another kid. Imagine how they will feel having a different family unit when the big sleepover takes place? Home-schooling is not the answer either, simply because someday they will have to deal with what is going on. Please think about it!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-1999
Tue, 05-18-2004 - 11:14pm
Yet you (and other Christians) don't have to "earn" respect? You just get respect because you invoke your god? And what exactly does this have to do with anything? Gays aren't asking for your respect, they aren't asking for your blessing (unless they are somehow related to you) they aren't asking for you to show up at their wedding and hug them and say "good job" and eat cake, they just want you to butt out. I don't really care if you believe in the bible. I don't care what version you read or how you interpret it. I don't care if you like the idea of same-sex marriage or not. But you don't have the right to interfere with how other people choose to live their life based on your religion. You live however you want. Let the rest of us live however we want.

Photobucket


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-19-2004
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 3:55am
I just have to say, that I am a person who from the age of 13 (I am now 18) lived with my mom and her partner Jane. Of course, I was affected by it, but I soon realised that only other people seemed to have a problem with it, and if they wanted to make my life hard, then they weren't worth being around. I'm not saying that their opinion is worth nothing, but if they make me miserable because of it, then it's best to avoid them. I understand that some children might not be able to deal with that situation in that way, but some kids are more accepting and adaptable than you think. I also realised that I was more unhappy when my mum was with my dad still, because there was less smiles, and more arguments. That sort of strain is much worse. I myself came out as bisexual at 15. I believe that having a gay mum has made more a more open-minded person. Before that I was very afraid of the idea of homosexuality, but I was forced to face my fear. I think that, although children are very important, so is your happiness. If you are unhappy, it affects your kids. Think on...
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-13-2004
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 4:33am
I know I am a little late, but not too late to commend a wonderful statement. Thank you Pretty Nancy for the most eliquently made statement. It was definitely worth more than 2 cents.

I am a lesbian and I completely agree with what Pretty Nancy has just said. I too agree with the sacred word of "marriage" which is between a man and a woman. HOWEVER, I believe that civil unions are necessary. Straight couples, how would you feel if your husband/wife would get seriously injured/sick to the point that they could die in the hospital, but they would not allow you in to say you loved them or say goodbye because you were not either a spouse or relative? How would you feel if the spouse would pass away and your spouse's relatives took everything that belonged to your spouse and you both (house, children, pets, etc) because you had no legal grounds to keep your home, etc? How would you feel if you were the only person in your household who was lucky enough to work for a company that provided insurance? Would you not want your spouse covered under your policy? Right now we do not have that option. Married couples also have the luxury of getting a break in their taxes for filing married. There are many things that "Married" couples take for granted that GLBT couples strive for every day.

Along with the benefits of marriage, there also needs to be the securities of marriage that include to legal proceedings of divorce. A lot of GLBT share a residence with someone. Sometimes, like "married" couples, the relationships do not work out. However, GLBT couples do not have anything legally binding them to share the responsibility of the split. Many times one end of the couple gets nothing, but the clothes they brought with them. A civil union, along with it divorce, would also give the couple legal grounds to the assets acquired during the civil union. This protects both parties in the relationship.

I love my girlfriend and she knows that without a doubt. God knows that without a doubt. I do not need a piece of paper to say that. I do not need a ceremony to state that, but I do need that piece of paper to entitle me to the same rights as Straight couples do -- civil unions and divorce.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 8:24am

Hi Nancy.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 8:45am

Welcome to the "In the News" board.


>"we are producing some screwed up kids"<


What does this have to do with

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 8:49am

Hi Reccap! Welcome to the "In the News" board.


I agree this isn't a religous matter, it's a legal one.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 8:56am

Hi Aburrahobbit.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Wed, 05-19-2004 - 9:02am
Let me state that I am categorically against homosexuality. I would argue against it on religious grounds and its negative effect on society.

That being said I have to agree with you to a point.

I don't think I could fight a civil union as reverently as I do "gay marriage". If you choose to spend your entire life together as a couple than certain legal protections should be granted. I wouldn't want to see you lose your home because you lost your partner. You should be able to visit your partner in the hospital and help make decisions regarding medical decisions.

The issue of company paid insurance is another issue in my view however and a company should not be compelled to provide insurance for same sex couples. That is another debate though.

And that tax break ain't all that great.

:)

Jim




Edited 5/19/2004 9:03 am ET ET by vader716

Pages