MA court ruling on gay marriage ban...your thoughts?
 

so, what do GC-ers think?

via CNN.com:
Massachusetts Court Rules Ban on Gay Marriage Unconstitutional

State Legislature given 6 months to develop laws
Tuesday, November 18, 2003 Posted: 3:32 PM EST (2032 GMT)

CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry and ordered the state's lawmakers to devise changes in the law within six months.

In a 4-3 ruling, the court stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the seven couples that challenged the Massachusetts law.

The ruling could set new legal ground, and drew quick reaction from advocates on both sides of the issue.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney issued a paper statement saying he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and he would support an amendment to the state's constitution "to make that expressly clear."

"Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions," the court's ruling said. "That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law."

Vermont is the only state in the United States that allows same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Vermont calls them civil unions, rather than marriage. California's State Assembly recently passed a domestic partnership law to provide similar benefits, but it stops short of allowing gays to marry.

Governor might seek alternative to marriage
Romney left the door open for some other way of recognizing same-sex couples.

"Of course," he said, "we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman."

Connie Mackey of the conservative Family Research Council criticized the ruling, saying it was "a clear case of the courts overruling the majority opinion of the people."

"If the will of the people has anything to do with it ... the people will throw out any legislator that upholds this ruling," she told CNN. "The culture has seen the family unit for thousands of years as one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children."

Mackey also urged passage of a federal constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages.

But Elizabeth Birch, director of the gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign, argued that the courts are not obliged to support a majority of the people.

"If not for courts, African-Americans would not have had the right to vote, women would not have the right to vote," she said. "The purpose of a constitution is to protect a minority group from the wrath of the majority.

"The majority of people understand that a government-issued civil license to marry is not a threat to anyone," Birch added.

Court used constitution as basis for ruling
The seven same-sex couples that sued the state for denying them marriage licenses argued the Massachusetts' constitution prohibits discrimination because of sex.

In its ruling, the Massachusetts court rejected arguments based on religious or moral grounds -- from either side of the contentious issue.

"Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach," the ruling said.

"The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry," the court said. "We conclude that it may not."

Opposition to gay marriage, survey shows
The U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to interfere in the ruling, which was made solely on the basis of state law and not brought into federal courts.

Gay activists say the American judicial system is beginning to catch up with modern society.

In June the Supreme Court ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. On June 10, an appeals court in the Canadian province of Ontario struck down a ban on same-sex marriage.

But a majority of people surveyed in late October said gay marriages should not be legally recognized, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. According to the survey, 61 percent said no when asked whether gay marriages should be recognized as valid by law. Thirty-five percent said yes.

The poll, taken October 24-26, surveyed 1,006 people and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points.

The same poll showed sharp difference on the issue based on gender. According to the survey, 70 percent of men said no to legalizing gay marriage while 26 percent supported such unions. The survey showed that 53 percent of women opposed gay marriages, while 43 percent supported legalizing them. The question posed by gender had a sampling error of plus or minus five percentage points.

Why not?

Hurrah!

It's about time...
 

..I could only be more pleased if the SJC had demanded the licenses for the 7 couples, rather than the 180 day "solution period."

I must say, I think a significant part of the problem is semantics. Many of the negative comments are from those who are all for "unions" but object to the word "marriage" -- it's troublesome that we use the same word for two entirely different situations. There's a difference between a civil marriage and a religious marriage, although most people don't often think of it that way.

I'm glad to see that the Mass SJC made the distinction very clear in their ruling. Due to the fact that many state programs and benefits use marriage to determine funding, qualification, and benefits, it seems pretty clear that the civil marriage must be available to people of all walks of life under Mass equal rights law. Conveniently, it still permits the religions to do whatever they want -- the meaning of religious marriage does not change.

Now, if we could only do something about our opposing governor...

Hooray for Massachusetts!

Re: It's about time...
 

Recall him. It worked in California... :p

This is a step in the right direction. Why should couples be denied the benefits of marriage simply because both parties are the same sex?

Calling same-sex unions "marriage", though, might be a point to yield on. The important thing is that the unions are recognized at all.

:(

*le sigh*

i'm glad
 

and that's all i'm saying about it because of the mess that happened last time this topic was addressed.

It's about damn time!

I hope other states follow the lead of Massachusetts and Vermont.

Re: Re: It's about time...
 

I agree, and I think it should be taken further -- I think that "marriage" should be a word reserved for a religious ceremony, and "union" would be the government's acknowledgement of a familial unit for benefits, taxes, visitation rights, etc... for *all* unions (gender of the participants irrelevant).

As it currently stands, there's a little too much mixing of church and state for my liking. The government has no need to recognize a church marriage -- it needs to recognize a union to create the family unit.
Separating the concepts would allow the churches to keep marriage as they define it, but allow families with same sex parents to actually exist on the same level as families with different sex parents.

That way, you could get yourself a union, a marriage, or both simultaneously depending on how you see fit.

Good for Mass.

It's time and it's inevitible. Let's get on with it.

:( I was disappointed.

Very well put. :)

Re: Re: Re: It's about time...
 

Dang. That's a really good idea. I'm sure there are religious-type people who are offended that non-religious-type people can call it marriage when they consider marriage a sacrament, and on the other side of the coin, non-religious people who would rather not call it that because of religious implications.

I'm proud of my state.

edited to add: daoine, I like your idea. I've seen the separation of "union" and "marriage" work in other countries. It allows couples to define marriage according to their own religious tradition but also gives all families the same rights and responsibilities under the law.

Re: It's about time...
 

Actually, it's not just the governor who's against it. Many of the Democratic leaders in the state, including the Almighty Finneran have come out against it; Speaker Finneran is dead set against it in fact.

Re: Re: It's about time...
 

*Sigh* I know. I'm worried about the backlash legislation.

But I honestly wonder, if it was put to a vote in Mass., what the outcome would be. It appears that there's significantly more support than not (although that could be because I self select and tend to read more liberal sources)

On a side note, Cambridge (go Cambridge!) already has a proposition to skip the 180 days and start issuing licenses pronto. I think it comes up Monday...

Can I just say that I'm *so* happy about this. It's about time. And go Cambridge! I'm curious to see how many there are on Monday.

YAY! It's finally happening!

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's about time...
 

Like me. I know that I want the legal recognition of a marriage (such as being on my partner's insurance and being his next of kin in case of an emergency), but I personally don't need a priest/rabbi/chanting Buddhist monk to legitimize my partnership. My parents obviously felt the same way--they were married in a civil ceremony as well.

I think the negative sentiment stems from religious-based issues, and not legal.

Re: Re: It's about time...
 

But honestly I think it is more of a religious thing as opposed to a Republican/Democrat issue.

Most religious people that I know oppose gay marriage and they even oppose the thought of gay people as a whole.

Sure, some Democrats are highly religious and some Republicans aren't, I think that this is an issue that is sometimes overlooked.

I think this is a great thing and I hope it serves as a model for other states.

Re: Re: Re: It's about time...
 

It's definitely more of a moral issue - I was just pointing out that those arguing against it were on both sides of the political fence.

I think this is becoming one of those issues, like the death penalty and abortion that is going beyond political lines. Just my opinion.

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's about time...
 

I think you're right about this. Californians voted on a gay marriage proposition in 2000. Over 60% of CA voters voted to keep marriage between one man and one woman. Gay marriage was rejected. The state legislature recently sidestepped the will of the people, as they often do here in CA, and enacted recognition of gay unions this past September. Our ousted governor signed the bill. As it stands now, gay unions will be recognized in 2005, but the issue will more than likely be defeated again when presented to the voters. CA is by no means a conservative state, but historically, it has rejected the idea of gay marriage. Personally I am not opposed to the idea of gay unions, but I do believe the issue should be left to the people, not to the courts.

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's about time...
 

Oh, I didn't mean to make it look like I was against you bro because I'm not.

And I agree, it is becoming one of those issues and fast.

Re: Re: Re: Re: It's about time...
 

You are right about this (or at least I think so). People, regardless of their party affiliation have their own seperate feelings on this.

i'm going to be so undemocratic and so unPC it's shocking.

i believe that as long as two people support making a marriage or union (whatever you prefer to call in under the eyes of the law) between two people, no matter their gender than those uinons/marriages should be legal. otherwise we are denying two people the right that every other person in this country has. whatever happened to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness????? I think all of those apply here.

I think the idea of seperating "marraige" and "union" is a really good one. I was raised to believe that "marriage" is the sacrament a man and a woman commit with God. I like to tease my parents that they aren't really married because they got married by a Justice of the Peace, not a priest. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with gay unions. I think all the states should just rename it to a "Civil Union License" or a "Partnership License" and let any human beings over the age of consent get one. That way people who want to be married in a church can be, and people who want to be partners can be.

I personally am really fed up with the attitudes of some people opposed to this. I just don't like the idea that you want to dictate what other people do in their homes. God doesn't tell you to tell other people what to do in the bedroom, so why are you?

It's because God tells them what they can do in the bedroom and they're sick of gay people not having to follow any of the rules. :p

The debate over "Marriage" and "Union" was exactly what happened up here in Canada. The major objections from the various Church members (other than rejecting to the whole thing on religious grounds) was over this very issue. If the government had designated it as a "Civil Union", and that both marriages and unions were equal in the eyes of the law, then it would have gone over much more peacefully with the religious community.

Since we have separation of church and state, I do not see any reason for
banning same-sex marriages. I have not heard of any valid non-religious reasons
why homosexual marriage should be prohibited. This should've been challenged a
long time ago.

I'm man enough to admit it, I've been in a gay bar. It was literally like the scene in American Wedding and I asked my friend why it was a sausage fest. Up until a guy came up to me and started telling me he was a nurse and gave exams to hot bankers all the time, I was stupid enough not to get it. Afterwards the guys in powder blue shirts and shaved chests all started to make sense.

I don't care what others do as long as I don't have to see it or pay for it or whatever. I don't enjoy seeing straight people pretty much going at it in clubs either. The only thing I'm worried about are the implications and unintended consequences of this.

-Rudey

Re: Re: Re: It's about time...
 

they decided against doing this and waiting for the 180 days to be up. i believe they were advised by many groups to wait.

Technically, there is no seperation of church and state, but there is the exclusion clause which simply means that the government may neither encourage, nor discourage, religion.

The best solution, in my opinion, and as previously stated in this thread, is for unions to be under the province of government, and for all marriages to exist only in the religious sector of society.

I started this thread on DST ave before I saw that it was posted here...and I list a few reasons that are non-religious for banning homosexual marriage. Ya may not agree with my reasoning...but there are other reasons...

Lovespell, if you don't mind i'm going to respond to your post here so people can see your reasoning. PM me if you would rather it not be posted here and i'll delete this post.

i disagree with this statement. interracial marriages were once very much frowned upon, but now i see them every day. the same is true of homosexual couples, only society as a whole hasn't accepted these couples yet (i'm not saying that every single person in our society has accepted interracial relationships, but it's not looked at the same way as it was even 25 years ago).

I have been raised in a family that can very much be considered "nontraditional" in this sense (not in the whole 16 wives thing, but the other). I've stated this before and been flamed for it, but I will not let that stop me from defending my family. It has taught my brothers, my sister, and myself, as well as all our friends, to accept people no matter their race, gender or sexual awareness. Every person I have met who has been raised by two people of hte same gender has been much more tolerant towards people's differences.

A judge and/or a politician's job is not to base their decisions on what their religious beliefs are, but rather what is for the good of people. ALL PEOPLE, no matter who they are. I"m not saying that all judges/politicians actually follow this theory, but that is what secularism was designed for.

I really respect your opinions. While I disagree with them I think it is a good idea that everyone else has a chance to read them too, and decide for themselves.

NO I don't mind that you posted my thoughts here at all...
However, you cut and pasted part of what I was saying to make your point. The point I was making with Interracial vs. Homosexuality is that I can not CHOOSE whether I want to be black or white...but I can CHOOSE if I want to sleep with a woman. You cannot compare how someone is born vs a choice they make. I know some feel that homosexuality is not a choice...but I KNOW otherwise. I know some women that turn to women because they've been dogged by men, were sexually abused etc... but regardless of their reasoning....it was a choice they decided to make.

And while your situation may have turned out great...that still doesn't make it right. There are babies born addicted to crack that make astounding turnarounds...but doesn't mean its ok.

Secularism is the view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education. But for people that are religious, this is not possible. The premise behind secularism is to try to get Christians not to vote their moral or religius conscious...which I ask if that's not what you're going to do...why even proclaim to be a Christian?? BUt hey..if I was an atheist...I'd support secularism too.

We will have to agree to disagree:cool: ...but as I have stated before Our moral-less society is the direct reflection of the choices we make...and our children will suffer for our mistakes.

But how do you know? Have you spoken with every homosexual male or female. Did they tell you personally that this was a choice? I can't believe a person would consciously make this choice when they are frowned upon/despised/and even hated by some people.

Maybe some people have made the choice, but you DO NOT know that EVERYONE has made the choice.

Interesting points...but I don't agree, and here's why:

In case you haven't noticed, being religious or nonreligious aside, Christianity is not the only religion in this country. And even within Christianity there are many different faiths.

The point is, you believe what YOU believe and make your decisions. As a Christian, you should know that the big theme is FREE WILL. No where in the Bible does it say(and as far as I know, there is nothing in any other religion), "Ye shall not allow thy neighbor to do...whatever" Yes, there are "shall nots" all over the place, and interpreting those is not really the point. In the end YOU are responsible for YOURself, others are not your concern. "Judge not lest ye be judged." Everyone must make their own choices, it is not for you to be their moral police, you are not God. (Besides the fact that homosexuality is indeed genetic, but we won't get into that)

Yes, lets not get into that...because i'll tell my friend to start an account on Greek chat.. she was homosexual in college and is now married with two beautiful children.. (there were a whole group of them in school...and now they're all strictly .....)

But as I said in the other thread...I'm no one's judge...we all have to answer to a higher power one day...whether you're a secularist, atheist, etc.... and you can explain to him that he must have been trippin when he destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah
:eek: