Gay marriage step closer in U.S. state

Reuters | 11/18/03

[kattracks]

BOSTON (Reuters) - The highest court in Massachusetts has ruled that the state cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, a ruling that could make the state the first to recognise gay marriage. In a ruling posted on its Web site, the Supreme Judicial Court said on Tuesday the state of Massachusetts may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry."

Gay marriages are forbidden in the United States, although one state, Vermont, allows same-sex civil unions -- contracts that essentially provide most of the legal rights and protections of marriage but under a different name.

[JimVT]

Great.....maybe we'll lose a few swishers from VT to MA.

[biblewonk]

Any word on the bill Bush mentioned that would define marriage?

[clee1]

And now, the end is near.
And so we'll face the final curtain.

[Cultural Jihad]

Gays and lesbians have always been free to marry. They can have morally-licit heterosexual relations if they want to. There is no discrimination at all. What the court has determined is that there are more than two sexes, which I believe is outside of their jurisdiction.

[freetradenotfree]

First woman approved as head of Massachusetts high court
BOSTON (AP) — Justice Margaret Marshall was elevated to chief justice of Massachusetts' highest court Wednesday, becoming the first woman to head the nation's oldest appellate court.

Ms. Marshall, a former chief counsel at Harvard University, overcame charges of anti-Catholic bias to win a 6-3 confirmation vote by the Governor's Council, which votes on nominations by the governor.

"1 follow in the footsteps of giants," Ms. Marshall said. "1 do so with humility, and with a deep commitment to the rule of law."

Ms. Marshall, 55, a native of South Africa,

was appointed an associate justice of the Supreme Judicial Court in 1996. She was at Harvard at the time and had previously been in private practice.

Her nomination to head the 307-year-old court was marred when Cardinal Bernard Law raised concerns that she harbored anti-Catholic bias.

Law, who heads the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, wrote last month to Gov. Paul Cellucci and said Ms. Marshall was "open to serious charges of anti-Catholicism."

He cited an incident in which Ms. Marshall, while at Harvard, chastised a professor who had used university stationery for a personal note with an anti-abortion message.

Catholic groups also feared she could not be impartial on abortion cases because she once served on an abortion clinic's board of trustees. Ms. Marshall denied her personal views would affect her role as jurist.

Law later retracted his complaint after speaking with Ms. Marshall, who is Protestant. "She gave me her assurance that she was not anti-Catholic," he said, "and I have absolutely no reason to not accept her word on that."

Is Justice Margaret Marshall a U.S Citizens?

[missyme]

AMEN to that!!!

[Roughneck]

>>The highest court in Massachusetts has ruled that the state cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry<<<

Actually, I think they can. Marriage was institited by God -it is a religious ceremony, and the word "marriage" is to show the union between Christ and His church. Yeah, I know, we have to get a license and all, BUT that is a secular contract only.

Civil Unions could be sanctified by the State, but not marriage, which is sanctified by God.

Anyone think this could become a seperation of Church and state issue?

[missyme]

It is amazing that in the year 2003 which is coming to a close, we are seeing Biblical Prophecy in all fronts happening before our eyes.....

[lugsoul]

If it wasn't going to happen, it wouldn't be prophecy.

BTW - can you point me to the verse where this is described?

[Stop Legal Plunder]

Gay marriage is also a step closer in Britain this week.

[missyme]

If you read the Book Of Revelation you will see many verses that points to prophecy concerning the rise of immorality and homosexuality, let alone what both the Old and New testamnet scriptures tells us about morality, marraige and family.

Honor thy Mother and Father- Fell apart after "The Beaver"
not only do we not honor but now we kill our parents if we don't like them.
Man should not lay with another man- Well that fell part from day one but was hid under the rug until where were at now legalizing there behaviour into what they want to defame "Marraige"

And SEX- is nothing more than physical pleasure for men and women like getting a good massage or eating at a 5 star restruant.

Whatever G-d has said apparently in the year 2003 does not matter any longer, so like I said "PROPHECY" happening right before our eyes.

[lugsoul]

Just to clarify - your "prophecy" reference is to mentions of homosexuality and/or immorality in Revelation, and not to any reference to legal sanction of homosexuality - right? Is there any Biblical reference to "open" homosexuality, as opposed to closeted homosexuality? Are you aware of any statistical increase in homosexuality?

[longtermmemmory]

Actually on closer reading, the court said that the constitution does not outlaw homosexual marriage or that the constution was not specific enough. If the legislature outlaws homosexual marriage or makes the proper steps to outlaw homosexual marriage, then that would satisfy the Mass courts. This was the courts bending over forwards to create a legal opening for the homosexuals to pressure the legislature in Mass. There is already a move to contitutionall outlaw homosexual marriage. The question becomes can they now move fast enough.

[MineralMan]

'"Is Justice Margaret Marshall a U.S Citizens?"

She is, indeed.

[missyme]

In Soddom and Gommorah there was open Homosexuality and I am sure you know what happened to all of them. Sure you can have feelings of Homosexuality which I guess could be considered closeted, if you did not act upon it.
Where is your reference that Homosexuals unions were ever endorsed from G-d?

[lugsoul]

Wow. A bit of assumption there on your part.

First, I am well aware of Sodom & Gommorrah. I am well aware of Leviticus. These passages, however, are not PROPHECY.

YOU said we are witnessing prophesied events. I asked which passages related to this thread, and you made a vague reference to Revelation. This thread is about a court barring legal prohibition of a legal arrangement between homosexuals. It is not about any increase in homosexuality. Now, if you contend that there is such an increase that is prophesied, tell me what the basis for your contention is. If, on the other hand, you contend that the "legalization" of homosexuality is somehow prophesied, tell me where.

I didn't say there was any Biblical endorsement. You said there was prophecy relating to this, and I asked where. You gave a vague answer, and I tried to clarify. Either you have an answer to these questions, or you don't.

[Roughneck]

At a quick g;ance, Revelations 2:14 might interest you:l

The Living Bible (Paraphrased) "...you tolerate among you who do as Balaam did when he taught Balak how to ruin the people of Israel by involving them in sexual sin..."

(Also Revelations 2:19-20)

The bible I keep at work (yes, work), is not highlighted as well as my home referance, I'll look there tonight and see what I can find...

[YamYam]

I don't find the bible-research very helpful here. In general I find using the Bible as a guidline for political issues quite dangerous. There are always different ways in interpreting the Bible. Be it between Jewishs or Christians or even between Christian churchs. Who can tell me whose interpretation is the correct one? After all it is a matter of belief. So no-one can say that the other's interpretation is wrong.
I am not saying that I don't value the lessons from the Bible. But I don't consider it a valid source for interpretation of the constitution. Besides that: The constitution is for all citizens, right? For Christians of all kinds, for Jewishs, for Muslims and even for agnostics.
I like that politicians consider the Bible as their religous and moral source. But I have a problem when they want other politicians (or justices) to follow their belief. If I want others to respect my belief I have to tolerate their believe (or dis-belief) too.

[freetradenotfree]

how long