Mass. Ruling On **** Marriage
Smoke_Nova
Join Date: 2002-11-15 Member: 8697Members
Join Date: 2002-11-15 Member: 8697Members
<div class="IPBDescription">You heard that right folks, **** Marriage</div> <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031119/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage&cid=519&ncid=716' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...id=519&ncid=716</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
BOSTON - In the nation's most far-reaching decision of its kind, Massachusetts' highest court declared Tuesday that the state constitution guarantees g@y couples the right to marry — a ruling celebrated with a popping of champagne corks and the planning of spring weddings.
"Without a doubt, this is the happiest day of our lives," said Gloria Bailey, who with her partner of 32 years was among the seven g@y couples who had sued the state in 2001 for refusing to issue them marriage licenses
In its 4-3 decision, the Supreme Judicial Court gave the Legislature six months to rewrite the state's marriage laws for the benefit of g@y couples.
Although courts in other states have issued similar rulings, some legal experts said this one goes further in its emphatic language and appears to suggest that g@y couples should be offered nothing less than marriage itself — and not a lesser alternative such as civil unions, which are available in Vermont.
The ruling was another milestone in a year that has seen a significant expansion of g@y rights around the world, including a U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) decision in June striking a Texas ban on g@y sex. Canadian courts also legalized g@y marriage over the summer.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution," Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote.
The dissenting justices argued that the court was treading on lawmakers' territory. "Today, the court has transformed its role as protector of rights into the role of creator of rights, and I respectfully dissent," Justice Francis Spina wrote.
The decision prompted complex legal questions about the next step and about when the nation's first g@y marriage licenses will be issued, if ever.
Republican Gov. Mitt Romney denounced the ruling but said there is little the state could do beyond pursuing a constitutional amendment
"I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts," he said. "Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman ... and our constitution and laws should reflect that."
But the soonest a constitutional amendment could be put on the ballot is 2006, potentially opening a window of a few years in which g@y marriage licenses could be granted.
Vermont's high court issued a similar decision in 1999 but told the Legislature that it could allow g@y couples to marry or create a similar institution that confers all the rights and benefits of marriage. Lawmakers chose the second route, leading to the approval of civil unions in that state.
The Massachusetts decision makes no mention of such an alternative, and instead points to a recent decision in Canada that changed the common-law definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and led to marriage licenses being issued there.
The state "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples," the court wrote, adding that denying g@y's the right to marry deprives them "of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions."
Still, legal experts pointed out that the wording leaves it unclear whether the court would accept an alternative to marriage.
"It's poorly drafted in that they are going to create all of this controversy about what they meant," said Paul Martinek, editor of Lawyers Weekly USA.
The Human Rights Campaign, a national g@y rights organization, said that the Massachusetts decision goes beyond Vermont by saying that it is unconstitutional to bar g@y couples from the institution of marriage, and not just the accompanying benefits — such as hospital visitation and inheritance rights.
Meanwhile, President Bush (news - web sites) criticized Tuesday's ruling and said he would work with Congress to "defend the sanctity of marriage."
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said in a statement released shortly after he arrived in London for a state visit. He said the Massachusetts ruling "violates this important principle."
In Washington, congressional Republicans renewed calls for a constitutional amendment banning g@y marriages.
Bush has said in the past that he supports strengthening the federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union. But he has declined to endorse a constitutional amendment banning g@y marriage and his statement Tuesday gave no specifics of how he believes that stronger definition should be accomplished.
"I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," he said.
It is unlikely that Congress will be able to act on any legislation this year. Congressional leaders have said they want to recess for the year by Thanksgiving, and House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., is unlikely to hold hearings on the proposed constitutional amendment or other g@y marriage legislation this year.
The federal government and 37 states have adopted laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman — assuring legal battles over whether g@y marriages performed here will be recognized outside the state.
In the 1990s, Hawaii's Supreme Court ruled that a ban on g@y marriage might be unconstitutional, but state lawmakers amended the constitution before same-sex weddings were allowed. Similarly, a trial court in Alaska ruled in favor of same-sex marriages, but the Legislature amended the constitution to ban them.
Without any pressure from a court, California's Legislature passed a law signed by Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites) this summer that avoided using the term "marriage" but granted g@y couples who register as domestic partners most of the rights and responsibilities of spouses.
Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, who is openly g@y said Tuesday's decision "will enhance the lives of probably thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Massachusetts citizens, and will have no negative effects on anyone else."
House Speaker Thomas Finneran, a Boston Democrat opposed to g@y marriages, said he would reserve comment on the decision until after reviewing it. Finneran is perhaps the most powerful politician in the state, and he could set the course for the debate.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Discuss.
[edit] if you couldn't tell, **** = ****. i'll change it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
BOSTON - In the nation's most far-reaching decision of its kind, Massachusetts' highest court declared Tuesday that the state constitution guarantees g@y couples the right to marry — a ruling celebrated with a popping of champagne corks and the planning of spring weddings.
"Without a doubt, this is the happiest day of our lives," said Gloria Bailey, who with her partner of 32 years was among the seven g@y couples who had sued the state in 2001 for refusing to issue them marriage licenses
In its 4-3 decision, the Supreme Judicial Court gave the Legislature six months to rewrite the state's marriage laws for the benefit of g@y couples.
Although courts in other states have issued similar rulings, some legal experts said this one goes further in its emphatic language and appears to suggest that g@y couples should be offered nothing less than marriage itself — and not a lesser alternative such as civil unions, which are available in Vermont.
The ruling was another milestone in a year that has seen a significant expansion of g@y rights around the world, including a U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) decision in June striking a Texas ban on g@y sex. Canadian courts also legalized g@y marriage over the summer.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution," Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote.
The dissenting justices argued that the court was treading on lawmakers' territory. "Today, the court has transformed its role as protector of rights into the role of creator of rights, and I respectfully dissent," Justice Francis Spina wrote.
The decision prompted complex legal questions about the next step and about when the nation's first g@y marriage licenses will be issued, if ever.
Republican Gov. Mitt Romney denounced the ruling but said there is little the state could do beyond pursuing a constitutional amendment
"I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts," he said. "Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman ... and our constitution and laws should reflect that."
But the soonest a constitutional amendment could be put on the ballot is 2006, potentially opening a window of a few years in which g@y marriage licenses could be granted.
Vermont's high court issued a similar decision in 1999 but told the Legislature that it could allow g@y couples to marry or create a similar institution that confers all the rights and benefits of marriage. Lawmakers chose the second route, leading to the approval of civil unions in that state.
The Massachusetts decision makes no mention of such an alternative, and instead points to a recent decision in Canada that changed the common-law definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and led to marriage licenses being issued there.
The state "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples," the court wrote, adding that denying g@y's the right to marry deprives them "of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions."
Still, legal experts pointed out that the wording leaves it unclear whether the court would accept an alternative to marriage.
"It's poorly drafted in that they are going to create all of this controversy about what they meant," said Paul Martinek, editor of Lawyers Weekly USA.
The Human Rights Campaign, a national g@y rights organization, said that the Massachusetts decision goes beyond Vermont by saying that it is unconstitutional to bar g@y couples from the institution of marriage, and not just the accompanying benefits — such as hospital visitation and inheritance rights.
Meanwhile, President Bush (news - web sites) criticized Tuesday's ruling and said he would work with Congress to "defend the sanctity of marriage."
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said in a statement released shortly after he arrived in London for a state visit. He said the Massachusetts ruling "violates this important principle."
In Washington, congressional Republicans renewed calls for a constitutional amendment banning g@y marriages.
Bush has said in the past that he supports strengthening the federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union. But he has declined to endorse a constitutional amendment banning g@y marriage and his statement Tuesday gave no specifics of how he believes that stronger definition should be accomplished.
"I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," he said.
It is unlikely that Congress will be able to act on any legislation this year. Congressional leaders have said they want to recess for the year by Thanksgiving, and House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., is unlikely to hold hearings on the proposed constitutional amendment or other g@y marriage legislation this year.
The federal government and 37 states have adopted laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman — assuring legal battles over whether g@y marriages performed here will be recognized outside the state.
In the 1990s, Hawaii's Supreme Court ruled that a ban on g@y marriage might be unconstitutional, but state lawmakers amended the constitution before same-sex weddings were allowed. Similarly, a trial court in Alaska ruled in favor of same-sex marriages, but the Legislature amended the constitution to ban them.
Without any pressure from a court, California's Legislature passed a law signed by Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites) this summer that avoided using the term "marriage" but granted g@y couples who register as domestic partners most of the rights and responsibilities of spouses.
Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, who is openly g@y said Tuesday's decision "will enhance the lives of probably thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Massachusetts citizens, and will have no negative effects on anyone else."
House Speaker Thomas Finneran, a Boston Democrat opposed to g@y marriages, said he would reserve comment on the decision until after reviewing it. Finneran is perhaps the most powerful politician in the state, and he could set the course for the debate.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Discuss.
[edit] if you couldn't tell, **** = ****. i'll change it.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."
and Article 16:
"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."
So, yay for g@ys
Now that is just rediculous.
WHOOOO HOOOO!!!!!
I am all for g*y Marriage! I see no reason to stop them (ESPECIALY in the US)
Look, one of the key foundations of the US was the speration of church and state.
The only argument against homosexuality and homosexuat Marriage is that it goes against your religion.
If you look at it from an areligious point of view there is nothing wrong with it.
So watching Bush say that he will defend the 'sanctity' of Marriage is slightly distressing (seeing how as sanctity impies religous views).
BAH on you conservatives who are against homosexual Marriages, WE WIN ANOTHER FIGHT! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
On a fun side note:
CANADA has out paced us in foward thinking.... There is something wrong with this (jut me poking fun at our slaves up north <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
Now that is just rediculous. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
They're looking to have voters in the state decide whether or not their constitution should be ammended. Why is that rediculous?
They're looking to have voters in the state decide whether or not their constitution should be ammended. Why is that rediculous? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course its not rediculous as a point of order. I'm not debating their right to pusue such an action. My contention is that its rediculous that they would want such an amendment to exist.
(minorities get oppressed all the time. Its called democracy.)
(minorities get oppressed all the time. Its called democracy.) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, to be frank, it's about time those people were getting a bit of their own medicine, to heck with their feelings. It is poetic justice that it is now their turn after so many years where the homosexual minorities was getting their feelings trampled upon.
In Denmark you can always be married in the town hall, the mayor does the proceedings. No need to have it done in a church or similiar.
Well the specifics are eventually going to be due for a redefinition. I guess the time has come for such a thing. I am yet to hear any good arguments against homosexual marriages, but I've heard lots of good ones for them. Thing is, a marriage is a legal arrangement as well as a religous one. And no person should be excluded from certain parts of the law due to them being ****, should they?
They (Civil Unions) give people the exact same rights as a married couple, meaning taxes, insurances and anything like that is joint.
They (Civil Unions) give people the exact same rights as a married couple, meaning taxes, insurances and anything like that is joint. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Civil unions, aye, that's what you call them. In Denmark it has been possible for **** and lesbian couples to marry for 14 years now. Civil union at first, so they had to go to the town hall and get the mayor to do the ceremonies. But now also some vicars do it, both straight and **** ones I might add.
So you can be married in both religios as well as civil ways in Denmark. Some religious sects don't like it, so they don't allow it within their community. I believe this is the best solution. Our kingdom hasn't toppled yet because of it, no smithing of heathens occured and we haven't gotten any post cards from hell yet warning against them.
[edit]
Sigh. I think the time has officially come for the word Gee Aye Why to be removed from the swear filter of these fine boards. The amount of slurs used involving said letter combination has luckily been kept to a minimum.
Marriage in this situation IS a LEGAL thing, NOT a religious one.
In the US You need a Marriage licence for it to actualy count.
Remember lines like "Seperate but equal is not equal". Same deal here. Yah a civil union is "equal" But it is still discriminitory. It is saying that it is not right for Homosexuls to marry.
The constitutional amendment thing seems pretty weak to me. It smacks of taking the back door to get around anti-discrimination laws.
In 50 years I am sure that homosexual marriage debates will be something our kids will be embarassed of, just as we are unfomfortable hearing about racial debates of our parent's times.
Racial descrimination is still horibly rampant (well in the US), and is still constantly faught over.
meh, as for why people believe that homosexuality is a horible thing:
They are closed minded and fanatics. (note I believe fanatacism and closed mindedness are horrible things, few of the Ture Evils. I also think there are just as many left wing fanatics that are just as wrong as the right wing <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->)
Racial descrimination is still horibly rampant (well in the US), and is still constantly faught over.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am afraid I don't know much about racial animosity in USA as of lately. We've got enough in our country right now.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->meh, as for why people believe that homosexuality is a horible thing:
They are closed minded and fanatics. (note I believe fanatacism and closed mindedness are horrible things, few of the Ture Evils. I also think there are just as many left wing fanatics that are just as wrong as the right wing <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No kind of political radicalism is good I think - but I do have this impression that egalitarian societies will make more leftists, and more discriminatory societies will foster more right wingers. Perhaps USA needs a few more lefties <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
The government should see it as nothing more than a civil union, in fact they have no right to see it as anything else. The "relationship between a man and a woman" is a religious implication, and thus needs to be ignored by the government.
The best thing I see coming from all this is the further dissolution between church and state. Religion should only have rights <i>under</i> government, not in it.
And siad alot of my stuff in like 2 lines.
seperation of church and sate is a good thing <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Oh, and personly I was hoping good 'ol NYC would do it first <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
(You'll also find that I find the term "Wife" and "husband" to sound almost vulgar. life-mate sounds much...better)
Even when we try to work within the rules (getting civil rights without the use of the term 'marriage', which STILL smacks of inequality), they say that we're trying to take over the world. -_-;;
I would say that marriage -was- a religious term at first, but with the way our country has gone, 'marriage' is now government mandated (with regards to rights and benefits), and in a world where things actually work, religion would have absolutely NO influence on it.
For any conservatives out there who are against this, how would you feel if your husband/wife were laying in a hospital bed, dying, and the hospital were allowed to have orderlies physically carry you out of the room, as well as threaten you with arrest for even TRYING to get back in to stay with them? That's what marriage is to me. It's just a word conferring certain rights. It didn't help matters at all that due to a stupid loophole (if you don't leave anything in your will to an obvious beneficiary, they can contest the will) his sister took the entire inheritance, sticking said friend with the funeral bills. THAT is the kind of thing I want to see outright STOPPED.
And as for those saying that it would make a 'travesty of the institution of marriage'... anyone remember 'who wants to marry a millionaire'? A freaking GAME SHOW put on by some guy, just to get married? Rich, over-fed white people marrying just to get tax cuts? Screw that noise. I'd say that a homosexual couple who's been together for over 25 years is one hell of a lot more respectable, and would do the word 'marriage' far more justice.