History has been made in Massachusetts

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Source

SJC: Gay marriage legal in Mass.

By Kathleen Burge, Globe Staff, 11/18/2003

The Supreme Judicial Court today became the nation's first state supreme court to rule that same-sex couples have the legal right to marry.

"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 in the 4-3 decision.

The ruling won't take effect for 180 days in order to allow the Legislature "to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion," the court ruled in its 50-page decision. Since the SJC is the ultimate authority on the state constitution, however, the Legislature cannot overturn today's decision -- nor would the US Supreme Court agree to interpret a state's constitution.

Opponents could fight for a constitutional amendment, but the soonest that could be placed on the ballot is 2006. The Legislature has already been considering several bills, including one that would allow gay marriage, that would grant benefits to same-sex couples.

The SJC ruling held that the Massachusetts constitution "forbids the creation of second-class citizens." The state Attorney General's office, which argued to the court that state law doesn't allow gay couples to marry, "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marraige to same-sex couples," Marshall wrote.

The court rejected the claim of a lower court judge that the primary purpose of marriage was procreation.

Marshall was joined in the majority opinion by Justices John Greaney, Roderick Ireland, and Judith Cowin. Justices Francis Spina, Martha Sosman, and Robert Cordy opposed the decision.

In the dissent, Cordy wrote that the state's marriage statute historically described the union of one man and one woman. The law did not violate the Massachusetts constitution because "the Legislature could rationally conclude that it furthers the legitimate state purpose of ensuring, promoting and supporting an optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children," Cordy wrote.

The SJC case began in 2001 after seven same-sex couples from Boston to Northampton to Orleans went to their local city or town offices and applied for marriage licenses. When their requests were rejected, they filed a lawsuit in Suffolk Superior Court.

The couples sued the state Department of Public Health, which administers marriage laws and requires blood tests. In May 2002, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Thomas E. Connolly threw out the case before it went to trial.

Connolly ruled that the state constitution does not give same-sex couples the right to marry. Children have long been considered central to marriage, he wrote, and same-sex couples cannot bear children. The seven couples appealed to the SJC, and the justices agreed to hear the case.

The court battle drew national attention as the latest battleground for gay marriage. Hundreds of groups from Dorchester to Australia weighed in on the case, filing more than two dozen friend-of-the-court briefs.

State attorney generals in Utah, Nebraska, and South Dakota opposed the seven couples. So did religious groups from Catholics to fundamental Protestants to Orthodox Jews. Dozens of groups, including state and local bar associations, also supported the seven couples.

Since the SJC heard the case in early March, there have been significant legal developments in gay rights. In June, Canada voted to allow same-sex marraige after the Ontario Court of Appeals declared prohibitions against homosexual marriage unconstitutional.

"The restriction against same-sex marriage is an offense to the dignity of lesbians and gays, because it limits the range of relationship options open," the Canadian court wrote.

At the end of June, the US Supreme Court struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law in a 6-3 decision, ruling that gays have the constitutional right to make fundamental choices about "intimate conduct."

The Supreme Court decision was sweeping in its endorsement of gay rights. Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the dissenters, argued that the majority decision would likely pave the way for gay marriage.

Today's decision capped months of anticipation that recalled a similar drama in Vermont, the first state in the country to establish civil unions for gay couples. Three gay couples sued that state in the late 1990s after being denied the right to marry.

Five days before Christmas in 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the Vermont constitution mandated equal treatment of heterosexual and homosexual couples. The court left it to the legislature to decide whether to allow gay marriage or to create a parallel institution for gay couples.

Then-Gov. Howard Dean immediately announced he would support the latter, declaring himself uncomfortable with explicit gay marriage. The debate split the state's normally liberal electorate in a bitter debate, but the legistlature acted quickly. Four months after the court ruled, Dean signed civil unions legislation in a private ceremony that did not defuse opponents' anger.

That fall, campaigning for re-election in a state famed for its small-town civility, the governor donned a bullet-proof vest. Dean, who had won four previous landslides, barely got 50 percent of the vote, the level needed under Vermont law to avoid a run-off in the legislature.

Effects from Vermont's law rippled around the country. Gay couples forbidden to codify their partnerships in any other state flocked to the Green Mountains for civil unions. The debate has prompted some American newspapers to include civil union announcements in their wedding pages. And Dean touts his signing the law as part of his presidential campaign platform.

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[TheAnvil 0]

Basically the courts threw this issue to the legislature, as I understand things. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Nightingale 0]

Congratulations Massachusetts!!!!

2 states down, only 48 (and a couple of territories) left to go...

[lawrocket 3]

This is not a Constitutional crisis, for those who think it is. The federal Constitution doesn't appear to give any deference to homosexual marriages.

Nevertheless, a state can give as many rights as it wants. It just cannot take away rights guaranteed in the Federal Constitution.

This is simply a state's rights issue. The only Constitutional conflict possible is if other states don't give "full faith and credit" to Massachusetts marriages. This would be something that the Supreme Court would likely hear.

Look for this battle in the Supreme Court within the next five years.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jumper03 0]

Quote

Basically the courts threw this issue to the legislature, as I understand things. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

I'll never understand it....
If two people love each other, what the hell it matter if they the same sex? Or different sex? Or different color? Or same color?

If you've found someone who'll put up with your shit and want to spend your life with them - then whats the problem...

my guess is it comes down to money...fuckers don't want pay the benefits for gay spouses- I haven't kept up with it but I'd bet that's in there.....

Jump

Scars remind us that the past is real

[John4455 0]

That is SICK.

How do ya like it Johnny?

[Remster 30]

Quote

That is SICK.

Quite sick.... only 2 states.

Remster

[Guest]

There are those who say the government shouldn't be in the business of deciding who gets married and who doesn't, but others say it's the camel's nose under the tent.

If this is okay, then what's to stop incestual marriages? How about bigamy? Those must be okay too.

It's just another example of the decline of Western civilization.

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[TheAnvil 0]

Mark I agree in a way and in a way I also think that if two people love each other, even if I find their physical union revolting and disgusting, why the hell is that either my own or the government's business if their actions don't affect anyone other than themselves?

I agree with Lawrocket, that the recognition other states give to marriages in MA will end up in the US Supreme Court soon.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[CrazyIvan 0]

I believe all this is just a 'gimmick' to increase tourism or put a State on the map

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[jfields 0]

I'm just waiting for them to acknowledge polygamous marriages. Then I'll be set and I'll start accepting applications.

And before any ladies object, you will be free to engage in polyandrous marriages with all the guys you'd like. I'm equal opportunity about it.

[billvon 3,116]

>If this is okay, then what's to stop incestual marriages? How about
>bigamy? Those must be okay too.

It's fine with me. The government's not in the business of telling you what you can and can't do in your bedroom. They are in the business of allowing civil unions (including marriage) between two people for tax and legal purposes, and you should be able to get a civil union between you and your partner no matter who it is, as long as they are adult.

For a union of three or more? I believe that's called a corporation.

[CrazyIvan 0]

Quote

I'm just waiting for them to acknowledge polygamous marriages. Then I'll be set and I'll start accepting applications.

And before any ladies object, you will be free to engage in polyandrous marriages with all the guys you'd like. I'm equal opportunity about it.

Right....and maybe the 'South' will start lobbying "Same family" marriages

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[Guest]

Quote

if their actions don't affect anyone other than themselves?

Unfortunately, it does, indirectly. Such unions serve to diminish and de-emphasize (marginalize and minimize) the purpose of the social structure of marriage at large. By doing so, it weakens the social glue that marriage provides. Part of this is based upon a compact between the family and the state - id est, there will be offspring from the union that must be supported if anything should happen to the parents. This is the basis of the "benefit" structure that exists to support the institution of marriage.

In the struggle of the individual versus society, I see this as a case where civilization itself is weakened, because the basic family unit must now share limited social resources with those who for the most part won't sustain society (id est, reproduce. Without any replacement units, there can be no civilization. Ergo, it's an indirect attack upon the underpinnings of modern society itself).

But this (the whole same-sex marriage thing) is only one silly example. Western civilization is doomed anyway, so it really doesn't make much difference in the big picture.

However, I can't help wondering what future historians like Gibbon will make of our society...

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[storm1977 0]

My understanding is that nothing will change. The same thing happened in 4 other states, yet it is not legal or should I say recognized in any of the states yet.

"One state, Vermont, allows same-sex civil unions. The key difference between civil unions and marriage is that benefits from civil unions would stop at the Massachusetts border while rights from marriage would extend across the country -- giving gay couples equality under federal laws for taxes, health and retirement benefits, among other areas."

From: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20031118/ts_nm/rights_gays_dc

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[lawrocket 3]

Billvon is again correct. These laws and decisions are a statement of policy. The Federal Government policy is to stay the hell out of marriages. This is why marriage licenses are issued by states. This is why each state has its own different laws about it. Marriages are done under police powers, reserved to the staes individually by the US Constitution.

If the state decides that, as a matter of policy, incestual marriages and polygamy are allowed, then they can (assuming there is not a federal supremacy issue with a federal law under the commerce clause). Then the rest of the country can look at that state like, "What the???" Shoot, if a state wanted to give the age of sexual consent at "7" I don't see anything that the feds can do to stop them.

Let Massachussetts do what it wants.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Guest]

Quote

>If this is okay, then what's to stop incestual marriages? How about
>bigamy? Those must be okay too.

It's fine with me. The government's not in the business of telling you what you can and can't do in your bedroom. They are in the business of allowing civil unions (including marriage) between two people for tax and legal purposes, and you should be able to get a civil union between you and your partner no matter who it is, as long as they are adult.

For a union of three or more? I believe that's called a corporation.

I think there must be limits, for the sake of eugenics if nothing else. Incest is unlawful for moral reasons, but for legitimate medical reasons too. I mean, you can't stop Bubba and Bobbie Jo if they want to unite and produce a genetic freak, but the state doesn't have to legitimize it, either.

Once again, it's a hopeless waste of time to even debate it. Western civilization is doomed. However, in the meantime, it is possible to live well. I intend to live well by staying the heck out of these hot-button threads.

Edit for sentence structure.

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[CrazyIvan 0]

Quote

However, once again, it's a hopeless waste of time to even debate it. Western civilization is doomed.

I agree.

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[Guest]

Quote

Let Massachussetts do what it wants.

Agreed, but other states shouldn't be forced to accept social policies of Mass if they disagree with them.

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

if their actions don't affect anyone other than themselves?

Unfortunately, it does, indirectly. Such unions serve to diminish and de-emphasize (marginalize and minimize) the purpose of the social structure of marriage at large. By doing so, it weakens the social glue that marriage provides. Part of this is based upon a compact between the family and the state - id est, there will be offspring from the union that must be supported if anything should happen to the parents. This is the basis of the "benefit" structure that exists to support the institution of marriage.

In the struggle of the individual versus society, I see this as a case where civilization itself is weakened, because the basic family unit must now share limited social resources with those who for the most part won't sustain society (id est, reproduce. Without any replacement units, there can be no civilization. Ergo, it's an indirect attack upon the underpinnings of modern society itself).

But this (the whole same-sex marriage thing) is only one silly example. Western civilization is doomed anyway, so it really doesn't make much difference in the big picture.

However, I can't help wondering what future historians like Gibbon will make of our society...

mh

Um... still failing to see how if my uncle marries his boyfriend, how this DIRECTLY affects YOU any more than if my uncle married a girl.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

The government's not in the business of telling you what you can and can't do in your bedroom.

But I like chickens. They're the only ones who'll put up with me. There's one in particular I've had my eye on . . . it was true love from the start.

Any problems with us getting married?

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 3,116]

>But I like chickens. They're the only ones who'll put up with me.
> There's one in particular I've had my eye on . . . it was true love
> from the start.

Then peck away!

>Any problems with us getting married?

Civil unions are between adult people. Pets are owned, not united with. They are not legal entities; they have no rights or standing under the law.

[Guest]

Please re-read my remarks. You'll see the word "indirectly", meaning an affect upon society at large, not just an individual; exempli gratia: "It doesn't affect me personally, so why should I care?"

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[CrazyIvan 0]

Quote

But I like chickens. They're the only ones who'll put up with me. There's one in particular I've had my eye on . . . it was true love from the start.

Any problems with us getting married?

You found yourself a hot chick huh?...Congratulations!!!

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[lawrocket 3]

Actually, you are wrong. California has a wiating period for tests and such for marriage. Nevada does not. Yet, all other states recognize these marriages.

Other states are required to accept the policies of other states through the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. It's been that way for over 200 years now...

My wife is hotter than your wife.