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

[LuaBlanca]

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.

[bethany1982]

Why not?

[breathesgelatin]

Hurrah!

[daoine]

..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...

[Sistermadly]

Hooray for Massachusetts!

[aephi alum]

Originally posted by daoine
Now, if we could only do something about our opposing governor...

Recall him. It worked in California...

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.

[Honeykiss1974]

*le sigh*

[OUlioness01]

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

[ZTAngel]

It's about damn time!

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

[daoine]

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

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.

[moe.ron]

Good for Mass.

[DeltAlum]

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

[DZHBrown]

I was disappointed.

[OrigamiTulip]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
It's time and it's inevitible. Let's get on with it.

Very well put.

[33girl]

Originally posted by daoine
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.

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.