BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken

Subject: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: wysiwyg
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 11:32 AM

It's being reported as an OK on same-sex marriage, but what it really seems to be is a legal decision about the state's laws as drawn.

Click for MSNBC lewad and full text of opinion.

It will be interesting to see how commentary goes-- whether it tends to be based on the issue itself... or on the opinion actually handed down, in the context of MA law.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: mack/misophist
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 11:38 AM

This is going to be an interesting test of the 'full faith and credit' clause of the Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: wysiwyg
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 11:39 AM



BACKGROUND AND ADDITIONAL DETAILS

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: wysiwyg
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 12:21 PM

mack/misophist -

This is going to be an interesting test of the 'full faith and credit' clause of the Constitution.

Yes, I agree. Can you provide a link to that to aid the discussion?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: GUEST,irishajo
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 12:40 PM

Good news. Lots of happy people today. Lots of unhappy ones too, though.

Article IV

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: LilyFestre
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 03:02 PM

I think this news is GRAND!!!!! I hadn't seen it just yet....thanks for sharing! :)

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 05:21 PM

"...or on the opinion actually handed down, in the context of MA law."

The MA Supremes can only rule on the MA Constitution and law, so whatever is done HAS to be within that context.

The Associated Press says that the Court gave the MA legislature 180 days to fix the law. It appears that they are going to amend the MA constitution by defining marriage as being between a man and a women instead.

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: curmudgeon
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 05:53 PM

It will take years to amend the MA Constitution. The 180 days is to give the legislature time to change all the unconstitutional laws.

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 07:27 PM

A congressman from MA has said that the process necessary to make such a constitutional amendment will take until 2006. That gives a minimum of two years during which same-sex marriage will be legal, as the governor (opposed to the ruling, and a proponent of the amendment) has promised that the legislature will comply with the ruling.

Overall, this is good news in that courts over the nation are continuing to rule in favor of same-sex marriage, though many states have created or are considering amendments to prevent such. Unfortunately, the majority opinion still seems to weigh in favor of traditional homophobia.

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 07:47 PM

Unfortunately, this today:

November 18, 2003

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT


Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.


WHITE HOUSE

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 08:06 PM

That's a weird comment. If it's sacred, it's not really any of his business to go about enacting laws with regard to same now is it?

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 08:09 PM

This conversation needs a distinction to be made between secular, civil marriage, and the rights and obnligations attendant thereto, versus the religious sacrament.

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: wysiwyg
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 08:29 PM

It's in the court's opinion.... take a look.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: Amos
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 08:33 PM

Ah...hmmmm...making sanctity legal, now ... isn't that a bit close to supporting one religion over others? Fine for a person to do, but for the state or the nation, not really right, doncherknow?

A

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 09:10 PM

Yet another sideshow to keep Billy Bob's attention on a "hot button" issue that diverts attention away from the *real* problems facing the US...

Sure, I'm glad that the court has obviously held up constitutional rights but hope that America doesn't allow this issue to beat out unemeployment, underemployment, corporate theivery, invading other copuntries, lieing to the American people by Bush and Co., an Energy Policy written exclusively by oil men, Roe v. Wade, etc., etc., etc....

This should be a *non*issue, for gosh sakes... *Non*issue!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 09:40 PM

" Marriage is a sacred institution...."

Well, I guess this good ol' Southern Baptist that's in the White House ain't never heared about that there "Render unto Caesar..." quote from the Good Book, has he? 'Cause iffen it's sacred, Caesar oughta keep his nose outa it.

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Nov 03 - 11:25 PM

" Marriage is a sacred institution...."...to institutions that DEAL in 'sacredness', it is....but civil marriage, to protect household and deal with taxes and insurance, etc..is **NONE OF THE CHURCH'S BUSINESS!!!**

If Southern Baptist church "X" doesn't want to perform some ceremonies, fine...let folks deal with that as a religious matter, but people ARE living together, and we need a simple, plain law covering their rights in an equal manner. It will come...as soon as we explain to all the sanctimonius idiots that it is not hurting THEM, and they don't GET to 'vote' on some issues..

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: mack/misophist
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 01:31 AM

WYSIWYG: I can't provide a link because it was an original, if obvious, thought. I assume every one's heard of the 'full faith and credit' clause.

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: wysiwyg
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 09:20 AM

Well, maybe not, in an international forum, eh?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 09:28 AM

"Ban Stricken"?

That's a new one on me.

There are two issues here - one is about human rights, and other other is about language. I think it'd be better not to bundle them them together.

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 09:29 AM

"Ban Stricken"?

That's a new one on me.

There are two issues here - one is about human rights, and the other is about language. I think it'd be better not to bundle them them together.

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: Amos
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 10:15 AM

The radical right in the United States, who would rather see people stoned than think for themselves, are mobilizing to initiate a COnsitutional amendment on the definiton of marriage, seeking to preempt the stae's traditional rights in yet another area. Dear Gawd. The notion that the country was based on mutual respect and tolerance of rights is taking quite a beating these days.

It is urgent to not let this go through. It will be another Prohibition experiment or worse, and it will ultimately fail. But better it be prevented, because if it goes through it will only fail after bloodshed.

A

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: mack/misophist
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 12:46 PM

The 'full faith and credit' clause of the US Constitution requires all states to give 'full faith and credit' to each other's state laws.

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: Amos
Date: 19 Nov 03 - 01:32 PM

So it does. And that means a marriage solemnized in Massachusetts must be condoned in Arkansas or Mississippi, if the couple chooses to move down there. Well, that includes same-sex couples. So there will be the devil to pay as this sinks in among the reactionaries and they raise the cry for a Constitutional amendment, 'od rottem... Once again Massachusetts asserts its leadership.

A

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: GUEST,Gimmer
Date: 20 Nov 03 - 02:06 AM

I have been married 23 years + and I have mixed feelings about Gay Marriage. Do we then have to suffer endless Gay divorces as well? What is the reason for marriage after all? Why do we have it and why would Gay folks want to be wed? If its for sharing property there are other contracts for that. If its to raise children maybe it would work out for the best I don't know. It is all rather strange. It seems at times marriage is now just a trophy sought by some so that society has to except Homosexuals as equals in our culture. That pisses me off really bad as it is sacred to me. I already feel Gay people are my equals and deserving of all rights I enjoy. I have a gay cousin and a Gay brother in law and I love them very much. I don't think gays should suffer in a democratic civilization. If someone really wants to be pledged to another that is fine but not to make a statement. George Bush is however a Horses A**! PEACE

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: artbrooks
Date: 20 Nov 03 - 07:39 AM

It would be possible to go on for a long time about the legal advantages of marriage, such as sharing health insurance and inheritance rights, and equally possible to go on for even longer on the various ways that these rights can be given to couples without a marriage having taken place. The fact is that marriage represents a mental and moral committment between two people that is not present in other forms of cohabitation, when one or the other partner can pick up and leave at any time. Why should there be an assumption that individuals of the same sex are incapable of making this committment to each other and should be denied the privilege of marrying?

Marriage between people of different races was once illegal in the US-and not all that long ago, either. Denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples (or multiple-individual groups, for that matter) isn't really any different from forbidding a White man from marrying a Black woman (or any other combination you'd care to select). It is simply a denial of equal rights on the grounds of sexual preference.

I'm not familiar enough with the Bible to be able to say if there is a specific definition of 'marriage' in it, and certainly unable to tell if this was in the original Hebrew or Aramic or a later interpretation, but I'm sure that there are many people out there who are readily available to provide this information. My response would have to be "so what?" If Christians and other religious individuals want to marry only people of the opposite sex, that is certainly their right.

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 03 - 08:57 AM

The Bible, in problems of law, is irrelevant. It governs in questions of myth, hysteria and occasionally religion, however.


A

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 20 Nov 03 - 09:06 AM

Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage have been quite seperate for some time.

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: wysiwyg
Date: 20 Nov 03 - 10:07 AM

Ask the Mormons about Celestial Marriage if you really want to cover all forms of marriage! It's a corker!

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: GUEST,LDB
Date: 20 Nov 03 - 11:11 AM

There was a cartoon in the Kansas City Star this morning that was pretty much stated the silliness of the GOP on this one. It said"

"Don't they realize marriage is a sacred institution between a man and however many women he marries?"

!!!

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Nov 03 - 12:49 PM

Some states, not matter the commitment, will not recognize the choice of an unwedded partners to make decisions for the other in medical emergency, sign forms ok'ing emergency operations, insurance companies try not to recognize anyone & if they have a way to get out of their responsiblies of any cost to them they will. Health, social security, life & death benifits. But mostly what is government's right here to say I can wed but a gay couple can't? What I see is the Christian right wing & other interested groups with so much political clout that they are pushing their values onto the rest of the population & trying to change, keep or bend the laws to what they see as fit for others. The relationship between church & state, in the past decade or so, grows closer all the time, lately in leaps & bounds. I was raised as a Catholic & who are they to want to call any of the shots. They & other religious groups should have no voice in matters of laws at all. I can't understand how someone or something acts as if they have the God given or constitutional right that they can impose their moral beliefs on the rest of us. If you or I or anyone else doesn't want to see gay married couples don't get involved, don't look, that's your personal preference not your right. Bush has been pushing his own religious agenda since stealing office, his nose is in Roe v Wade, the right to die & or live, affirmative action, the funding of certain religious originations over public ones, who can apply & receive federal funding. Who is worthy of enjoying their constitutional rights & who's not? But this didn't start with Bush this has been going on for quite a while now. Does it do personal harm or cause suffering to any individual if a ungay or gay couple gets married or divorced (where's the difference between a hetro or a gay divorce)? Is it just that the offended ones just can't see past their own nose & have to stick it where it shouldn't be? We have been told by those who want the world to reflect their values that women can't vote, blacks can't enjoy the same benefits as the rest, some can't own property, others can't marry who they'd like to (not just gays either), who is old enough to die but not drink & a new one just cropped up-who is & is not allowed to watch or baby sit your kids. Foreign countries are being told or pressured into what they should buy & eat. I'm not ranting about the government, I'm going on about those who'd deny the rest based solely on what their personal beliefs, agendas or finical interests are. To them, may their own kids turn out to be everything that scares or sickens them & may that be their hell.


As for raising children is there any backup to the belief that gays raising kids would be detrimental to their development? What happens to the kids who have been loved, cared & raised by a gay couple when the mother of them dies, take the kids away from a loving home where the surviving partner be recognised as a parent? My niece was raised that way (as was others I know) & I can only hope that my kids will be as happy, kind & as much a contributor to society as their cousin is. Up until recently the law has been telling gays what they can't (not can) do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Nov 03 - 03:01 PM

I know a gay couple (male) whose union was blessed by the church they attend (a main-stream denomination, by the way).   They have adopted two children so far. These are a couple of pretty happy kids and apart from having two fathers (they refer to one as "Daddy" and the other "Papa"), they certainly seem normal in every way. The kids biological parents were Chinese, and victims of the "one child per couple" rule. The kids were adopted as infants from a Chinese orphanage, where the conditions were anything but psychologically—or physically—healthy for children—not a whole lot better than some of the Romanian orphanages. Now, these kids have a real chance at a good life

There are lots of couples out there who are childless, for whatever reason. And there are millions of kids out there all over the world who haven't a chance. Whether or not a loving, caring couple who adopts and raises them are same sex or opposite sex seems to me to be a consideration wa-a-a-a-ay down the list of importance.

One reason among many why the government, or anybody else, poking a ponderous proboscis into people's private relationships is not a good thing.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 03 - 05:04 PM

Ya know, the bottom line is that it is none of anyone's goddamned business if two gays want to wed, and for the alleged President to not see that is a violent testimony to his incompetence as the leader of the so-called once "Free" world. Instead, he offers to extend the violation further by asserting his own narrow-minded view of existence as a point of law thus enforcing it on people who are in many ways his superiors.

The man is a ass.

A

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: LilyFestre
Date: 20 Nov 03 - 05:25 PM

LOL...AMEN!

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Nov 03 - 06:34 PM

Stop beating around the bush, Amos, and just tell us what you really think.

Subject: RE: BS: MA Sup Court: Gay Marriage Ban Stricken
From: Amos
Date: 03 Aug 05 - 12:19 AM

In other news:

Court Ruling Aids Domestic Partnerships

State justices say businesses must give spousal privileges to registered couples. Case could complicate debate on same-sex marriage.

By Maura Dolan, Times Staff Writer

SAN FRANCISCO — Businesses that provide discounts, special services or other privileges to married couples must extend the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples registered as state domestic partners, the California Supreme Court decided 6-0 on Monday.

The ruling will affect a broad range of businesses, including banks and mortgage lenders, auto insurers and health clubs. Lenders will have to consider domestic partners' joint income in making loans, and insurers will have to offer the same multiple-driver discounts they give married couples.

The decision adds to a growing body of legislation and court decisions that have put California ahead of most other states in extending rights to same-sex couples.

"This is a very significant step toward equality," said Jon W. Davidson, an attorney with Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund who argued the case. Randy Thomasson, an opponent of the state's domestic partners law, responded to Monday's ruling by calling on voters to "stop the out-of-control courts from trampling marriage and trashing the deeply felt standards of private businesses and organizations."

---

There may be hope for tolerance and private freedom yet. Although I am devoutly heterosexual, I certainly do not want George Bush or any half-witted Nenaderthal like him trying to tell me I have to be.


A