|
 silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
 Massachusetts court upholds same-sex marriage 
#2302695 - 02/04/04 09:04 PM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
link
President Bush responded Wednesday evening to a decision in support of gay marriage by Massachusetts' highest court by calling the ruling "deeply troubling."
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said in a statement. "If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
In his State of the Union address January 20, the president stopped short of endorsing a constitutional amendment that would ban marriages for gay and lesbian couples, as social conservative groups had hoped.
But he said, "... if judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts 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 to allow same-sex marriages.
Wednesday's advisory opinion was in response to a request from the state Senate about whether allowing gays to join in civil unions would be sufficient.
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."
White House lawyers have been studying the legal implications of the Massachusetts decision in light of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and a possible constitutional amendment.
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 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 [Supreme Judicial Court]."
Romney: Issue "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. (Full story)
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.
The 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.
Front-runner Sen. John Kerry is from Massachusetts and does not support gay marriage but does support civil unions. Gov. Howard Dean is from Vermont, which created civil unions.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee has endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota has said he believes the Defense of Marriage Act provides enough protection for the definition of marriage and that an amendment is not necessary.
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.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
 Tao
Village Genius
Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
 Re: Massachusetts court upholds same-sex marriage [Re: silversoul7]
#2303490 - 02/05/04 01:01 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
If they start trying to pass a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriages, I've already resolved to go and join whatever protest is organized. Why oh why can't people just fucking leave others to do what they want when it doesn't harm them? Same with drugs and all sorts of other victimless crimes. I have yet to hear one good argument as to why it shouldnt be allowed, only that stupid ass phrase "it will destroy the sanctity of marriage"
what? how will it? how will it affect your own marriage? what bullshit.
and if anything 'destroys the sanctity of marriage' its rampant porn, celebrating slutty behavior and ubiquitious sex outside of marriage. not that they should be trying to make any of that illegal obviously. and perhaps most of all, making divorces so easy that people don't give marriages as much work as they should.
--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs 
|
jrod38182
#41
Registered: 10/28/02
Posts: 179
Loc: wading in the velvet sea
Last seen: 13 years, 21 days
|
Re: Massachusetts court upholds same-sex marriage [Re: Tao]
#2340075 - 02/16/04 04:11 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Churches want gay marriages outlawed because the only time they feel a man should be kissing another man in church, a priest should be involved  
--------------------
POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
Ambrose. Devils Dictionary
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: Massachusetts court upholds same-sex marriage [Re: jrod38182]
#2340140 - 02/16/04 05:16 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Churches want gay marriages outlawed because the only time they feel a man should be kissing another man in church, a priest should be involved
*rim shot*
--------------------
America....FUCK YEAH!!!
Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Kratom Powder For Sale 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 all )
daussaulit
GabbaDj
gluke bastid
Madtowntripper
lonestar2004
Redstorm
psilomonkey