Mass Supreme Court Greenlights Gay Marriage

[wvjohn]

CNN sez


Massachusetts court upholds same-sex marriage
From Rose Arce
CNN
Wednesday, February 4, 2004 Posted: 1:37 PM EST (1837 GMT)



The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in a file photo.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story Tools



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RELATED
The Nov. 2003 Massachusetts high court ruling

Interactive: Same-sex marriage laws in United States

Bush uncertain about gay marriage ban July 2, 2003

FindLaw analysis: Joanna Grossman on civil unions


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Interactive: Polls on same-sex marriages
• States determine marriage laws
• Read the ruling: Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (FindLaw, PDF)
• Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law

YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Follow the news that matters to you. Create your own alert to be notified on topics you're interested in.

Or, visit Popular Alerts for suggestions.

Manage alerts | What is this?


(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court reiterated Wednesday that only full marriage rights for gay couples, not civil unions, would be constitutional.

The ruling sets the stage for Massachusetts to likely become the first state in the nation to allow same-sex marriages.

The advisory opinion released Wednesday by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was in response to a request from the state Senate about whether allowing gays to join in civil unions would be sufficient.

In its decision, the court rejected using civil unions as a remedy, "Because the proposed law by its express terms forbids same-sex couples entry into civil marriage, it continues to relegate same-sex couples to a different status. ... The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."

Wednesday's ruling comes a week before a constitutional convention will be held by state lawmakers to consider an amendment legally defining marriage as a union between men and women. That amendment would have to be ratified by both houses of the Legislature in two successive legislative sessions and then be ratified by the voters.

The earliest voters could consider a constitutional amendment would be November of 2006. The Massachusetts high court ruling from last November and reiterated on Wednesday will become state law in mid-May, regardless of what the constitutional convention decides.

"The people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage," said Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a written statement on Wednesday's opinion. "This issue is too important to leave to a one-vote majority of the SJC."

In November, the Massachusetts high court cleared the way for lesbian and gay couples in the state to marry, ruling 4-3 that commonwealth attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right. The November 18 ruling gave the Legislature six months to rewrite the state law to conform to the ruling.

The state Senate then asked the court whether the commonwealth could satisfy its constitutional concerns by granting civil unions to gays and lesbians, but forbidding them from obtaining civil marriage licenses.

Civil unions grants couples most of the rights of state civil marriages, except the name, but provide none of the federal benefits of marriage, such as Social Security benefits.

In 1999, Vermont lawmakers created the institution of civil unions. Several other states have granted limited marriage benefits to gays but called them domestic partnerships. Thirty-seven states have passed laws forbidding the recognition of gay marriages.

The Massachusetts' court's November ruling, as well as the granting of marriages to gay couples in Canada, set off a debate in the United States and among the Democratic presidential candidates.

President Bush has suggested he would try to amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit gay marriages.

Front-runner Sen. John Kerry is from Massachusetts and supports civil unions, but not gay marriage. Howard Dean was Vermont's governor when the civil union law passed

Last year, California's State Assembly passed a domestic partnership law to provide similar benefits, but it stops short of allowing gays to marry. Several other states have granted limited marriage benefits to gays but called them domestic partnerships. Thirty-seven states have passed laws forbidding the recognition of gay marriages.

[TheSovereign]

oddly enough.....i really dont have any feelings on this......hmm

[©LINT]

Not to be a Holy Roller or whatever, This doen't matter to me but in Gods eyes its not right. So in all honesty, its not really a marriage but just a title they will get through the courts and legal bull.

So do whatcha want! IDGAF as long as it doesn't effect my life in any way.

Sov has nothing to say? Wow man you sick?

[sbp]

"...The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."
Guess that explains Harvey Milk Homo High in NYC.

Originally posted by TheSovereign
oddly enough.....i really dont have any feelings on this......hmm

You don't have a problem with courts legislating?

[rogue]

This was bound to happen sooner or later. The sooner we get off our bible thumping asses and pass some progressive reforms the better. I see no problem with gays getting the same rights we heterosexuals currently have.

[sbp]

Not being in favor of this radical idea can come from a secular pov.

When a lib says equal rights, you can be damn sure they mean special treatment.

Originally posted by rogue
This was bound to happen sooner or later. The sooner we get off our bible thumping asses and pass some progressive reforms the better. I see no problem with gays getting the same rights we heterosexuals currently have.

Of course it was since every bad idea leads to an even worse one. You have to ask yourself what next will be thought up. Frankly this country has had just about enough so-called "progressive reforms" that have made things deteriorate.

Nice of you to be concerned about religion and how terrible it is, too bad there is a lack of concern about judicial activism run amok.

"meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

[Shadow250]

i think it friggin retarded, its legalized perversion, these people should be in an institution not getting laws saying their sickness is ok.

[Pugsley]

not that im gay.. but who wants to marry me for taxes? you can save alot as a maried couple. its the biggest scam ever.

[eGoCeNTRoNiX]

Originally posted by rogue
I see no problem with gays getting the same rights we heterosexuals currently have.

[sbp]

Originally posted by Pugsley
not that im gay.. but who wants to marry me for taxes? you can save alot as a maried couple. its the biggest scam ever.

Do you have a picture?

[RubberDuckie]

its the biggest scam ever

its legalized perversion

Two good quotes

[Pugsley]

wheee... i made a good quote! and NO pictures... i try to stay away form cameras... and i do so for a reason...

[TheSovereign]

Originally posted by sbp

You don't have a problem with courts legislating?

sure i have a problem......but what can i as a lowly out of work sysadmin do about it?
PREDICTION: islam will soon take the usa to court because we do not follow SHARIA law which is part of their freedom of religion

[TonyH]

Originally posted by Pugsley
i try to stay away form cameras... and i do so for a reason...

Must be butt ugly then. Guess none of the boys will be punching your dance card.

In a way I don't give two hoots about what they do but I don't agree with them.

[MegaVectra]

wvjohn, this is not directed towards you.

Big frigg'n whoop. I'm tired of hearing about this plague on society. Gay is "in". It's a fad. If and when it starts affecting my personal life, I'll actually give a shit. Ever notice how most gay characters on TV are stupid or comedic? Around here fags seem to wanna look like James Dean..?? I find that funny as hell. Freaks.