Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mass. High Court Rules for Gay Marriage
Associated Press Writer ^ | Wed, Feb 04, 2004 | JENNIFER PETER

Posted on 02/04/2004 8:24:28 AM PST by presidio9

BOSTON - The Massachusetts high court ruled Tuesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples — rather than civil unions — would meet the edict of its November decision, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages would take place in the state beginning in mid-May.

AP Photo Slideshow: Same-Sex Marriage Issues

The court issued the opinion in response to a request from the state Senate about whether Vermont-style civil unions, which conveyed the benefits — but not the title of marriage — would meet constitutional muster.

The much-anticipated opinion sets the stage for next Wednesday's Constitutional Convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Without the opinion, Senate President Robert Travaglini had said the vote would be delayed.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change state laws to make it happen.

But almost immediately, the vague wording of the ruling left lawmakers — and advocates on both side of the issue — uncertain if Vermont-style civil unions would satisfy the court's decision.

The state Senate asked for more guidance from the court and sought the advisory opinion, which was made public Wednesday morning when it was read into the Senate record.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: aids; antifamily; antimarriage; blackrobetyrants; blueoyster; civilization; cultureofdeath; culturewar; gaymarriage; godsjudgement; goodridge; homosexualagenda; intolerantgays; jenniferpeterha; legalizebuttsex; marriage; prisoners; protectmarriage; queer; romans1; samesexunions; sodomites; sodomy; tyranyofthejudiciary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-593 next last

1 posted on 02/04/2004 8:24:32 AM PST by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9
...only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples — rather than civil unions ...

The slope just became a little more slippery.

2 posted on 02/04/2004 8:27:51 AM PST by ladtx ( "Remember your regiment and follow your officers." Captain Charles May, 2d Dragoons, 9 May 1846)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Down with the Court! Their arrogance is beyond contempt.. Stop the social engineering!
3 posted on 02/04/2004 8:29:32 AM PST by Pyro7480 ("We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
The ball is in your court Mr. President.
4 posted on 02/04/2004 8:30:01 AM PST by KantianBurke (Principles, not blind loyalty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change state laws to make it happen.

Of the judges, by the judges, for the judges.

I will never go over Massachusetts airspace, let alone visit there.

5 posted on 02/04/2004 8:30:26 AM PST by hattend (Are we there, yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
The ball is in your court Mr. President.

Where is the abortion ball?

6 posted on 02/04/2004 8:31:18 AM PST by biblewonk (I must try to answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
The ball is in your court Mr. President.

And just what is he suppose to do? Right now this is still a state issue and not a federal one.

7 posted on 02/04/2004 8:31:35 AM PST by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
The state Senate asked for more guidance from the court and sought the advisory opinion, which was made public Wednesday morning when it was read into the Senate record.

Did I miss something here. Should it be that the state Senate advises the courts and not the other way around?

8 posted on 02/04/2004 8:31:35 AM PST by VRW Conspirator (The 10th amendment means something...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Old Teddy and his side-kick JFKerry must be ever so pleased. MASS is now land of Sodom!
9 posted on 02/04/2004 8:32:06 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hattend
Quote "I will never go over Massachusetts airspace, let alone visit there"

I am sure they really don't care whether you visit there or not.

Sounds like the nation is moving forward. A victory for human rights...
10 posted on 02/04/2004 8:32:12 AM PST by I_love_weather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
Right now this is still a state issue and not a federal one.

The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution would say otherwise.

11 posted on 02/04/2004 8:32:25 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
One of the best parts of the SOTU speech was Bush targeting these activist judges.
12 posted on 02/04/2004 8:32:28 AM PST by Vision (Always Faithful)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I think I'm going to vomit...
13 posted on 02/04/2004 8:32:36 AM PST by kdmhcdcfld (Any rebroadcast of this tagline without the express written consent of FreeRepublic is prohibited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
This makes the Full Faith and Credit clause that much more interesting... Gay marriage has just been made legal in all 50 states.
14 posted on 02/04/2004 8:34:43 AM PST by Lunatic Fringe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
If Pres. Bush doesn't support stopping this slide into Sodomite Hell via a Constitutional amendment, he doesn't deserve to be President, and say hello to Pres. Kerry.
15 posted on 02/04/2004 8:34:47 AM PST by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
"A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH'S ADDRESS BEFORE A JOINT SESSION OF THE CONGRESS ON THE STATE OF THE UNION

January 20, 2004

http://www.c-span.org/executive/transcript.asp?cat=current_event&code=bush_admin&year=2004

16 posted on 02/04/2004 8:35:11 AM PST by KantianBurke (Principles, not blind loyalty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: I_love_weather
Sounds like the nation is moving forward

To what end?

Nice troll.
Wrong lure.

17 posted on 02/04/2004 8:35:39 AM PST by hattend (Are we there, yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
That's what Pres. Bush said. Now, will he back up his words?
18 posted on 02/04/2004 8:35:58 AM PST by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke; Joe Hadenuf
The ball is in your court Mr. President.

Actually it is in the Mass. legislatures court. This is a state issue for now. But what the hey you gotta be like Joe and bring in your animus towards the President into the fray somehow.

19 posted on 02/04/2004 8:35:59 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
Yes, and once it becomes a federal case, then the President can do something. Right now it is still a state issue. It is quite possible that the federal courts might not agree to hear any full faith & credit cases until the issue is resolved by the voters. If they pass a Constitutional amendment, then the state Supreme Court ruling is void. If they reject it, then there will be a FFC issue.
20 posted on 02/04/2004 8:36:40 AM PST by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Those who say a constitutional amendment in all states and at the national level is unnecessary are either naive, in a a dream-world, or devious.

The amendment route appears to be the ONLY route for protecting marriage.
21 posted on 02/04/2004 8:36:56 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Those who say a constitutional amendment in all states and at the national level is unnecessary are either naive, in a a dream-world, or devious.

The amendment route appears to be the ONLY route for protecting marriage.
22 posted on 02/04/2004 8:36:57 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Dear Lord help us.........
23 posted on 02/04/2004 8:36:57 AM PST by apackof2 (I won't be satisfied until I am too smart for my own good)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk
Do you feel ever so cool saying that knee jerk little statement?
24 posted on 02/04/2004 8:37:32 AM PST by cajungirl (John Kerry has no botox and I have a bridge to sell you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: I_love_weather
Be gone troll.
25 posted on 02/04/2004 8:37:34 AM PST by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hattend
Quote "Nice troll.
Wrong lure."

Troll? LOL...nice try

I have no problem with this legal ruling. I am a firm believer in equal rights...

Just because you don't believe in this doesn't mean you have the rigth to tell someone else what to do or how to live.

Your beliefs are just that...your beliefs.

26 posted on 02/04/2004 8:37:53 AM PST by I_love_weather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
Thanks but that doesn't answer my question. I was just wondering if you were doing the same thing I was doing a couple of weeks ago. I was expecting the president to stop gay marriage, or else.
27 posted on 02/04/2004 8:38:00 AM PST by biblewonk (I must try to answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
If the Mass. lawmakers had any (tennis) balls, they would tell the court to take their ruling and shove it up their black robes.

If I was in the legislature in Mass., I would be very concerned about a court trying to tell me what I have to do. Exactly what can the court do if the legislature refuses to comply with the court's dictation?
28 posted on 02/04/2004 8:38:15 AM PST by whereasandsoforth (tagged for migratory purposes only)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
I believe the MA Supreme Court has ordered the MA legislature to enact gay marriage into law.

If they do, then this becomes a federal issue under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Pres. Bush must stop this.
29 posted on 02/04/2004 8:38:33 AM PST by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk
If Pres. Bush doesn't support stopping this slide into Sodomite Hell via a Constitutional amendment, he doesn't deserve to be President, and say hello to Pres. Kerry

Congress is the body who sets the constitutional amenmdment bandwagon going. The President has nothing to do with it.

But you already knew that.

30 posted on 02/04/2004 8:38:33 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dane
I believe the MA Supreme Court has ordered the MA legislature to enact gay marriage into law.

If they do, then this becomes a federal issue under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Pres. Bush must stop this via support for a Constitutional amendment ASAP.
31 posted on 02/04/2004 8:38:57 AM PST by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: hattend
He's not a troll. He's been here longer than I have, even.

I object not to the recognition of civil unions, but to the courts deciding morality for the rest of us.

32 posted on 02/04/2004 8:39:48 AM PST by RightWingAtheist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: I_love_weather
This is not about "EQUAL RIGHTS"! Talk about deception!
33 posted on 02/04/2004 8:39:52 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
All doubt has been removed. It's time to impeach and disbar their High Bench and replace them with real people.

May those justices' have to live under the actions they consider "just".
34 posted on 02/04/2004 8:40:00 AM PST by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The amendment route appears to be the ONLY route for protecting marriage.

Actually Congress could simply remove the ability for federal courts to hear such cases. Congress sets the jurisdiction for the courts and with a few exceptions that are in the Constitution, can prohibit certain types of cases from going before the courts. This would leave it as a state issue and not force the will of one state on all other states.

35 posted on 02/04/2004 8:40:05 AM PST by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
AP Photo Slideshow: Same-Sex Marriage Issues

Ick.

36 posted on 02/04/2004 8:40:56 AM PST by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kdmhcdcfld
No need to vomit here. Just start thinking about how a constitutional amendment is gotten because it may take that. But hey, don't be throwing up.
37 posted on 02/04/2004 8:41:07 AM PST by cajungirl (John Kerry has no botox and I have a bridge to sell you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
I am very disappointed that Pres. Bush has not been doing more to bring this issue to the forefront, as liberal judges try to impose gay marriage on the country.

His State of the Union address was good on this point, now I (and most of the base) want him to back it up.
38 posted on 02/04/2004 8:41:37 AM PST by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
"Congress sets the jurisdiction for the courts and with a few exceptions that are in the Constitution, can prohibit certain types of cases from going before the courts."

That's all well and good until either the Rats re-obtain power in Congress or the RINOs force our hand. Its better to end this issue once and for all with an Amendment.
39 posted on 02/04/2004 8:41:37 AM PST by KantianBurke (Principles, not blind loyalty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk
I believe the MA Supreme Court has ordered the MA legislature to enact gay marriage into law.

Yes they have and the Mass. legislature can put a stop to this by putting an amendment in their state Constitution. I have no idea if an amendment would pass.

If it doesn't then the US congress gets the ball rolling on an amendment to the US Constitution to be sent to the states. The President has nothing to do with passing constitutional amendments.

40 posted on 02/04/2004 8:42:04 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
The ball is in your court Mr. President.

Exactly how is this ball in the President's court?

41 posted on 02/04/2004 8:43:11 AM PST by Maceman (Too nuanced for a bumper sticker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Actually I have been around since 2001 or so...not that anyone cares :) heh
42 posted on 02/04/2004 8:43:30 AM PST by I_love_weather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
John Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Bill.

This will be a political hot button of this campaign. I will not doubt that this will end up in the supreme court since this law will force other states to recognize this ruling and thus recognize gay marriages from Massachusetts.
43 posted on 02/04/2004 8:43:43 AM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs (Bush has won two wars, Kerry is French......'nuff said)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
However, this can be done by simple majority.

Therefore, congress could reverse themselves and remove that restriction on judges by simple majority in the future.

The amendment route makes it very solid law of the land that cannot EASILY be over-turned. We should do it NOW while the consensus is available NOW.
44 posted on 02/04/2004 8:43:57 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk

45 posted on 02/04/2004 8:44:35 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Time for the Mass. State Legislature to tell the courts to take a hike. Period.
46 posted on 02/04/2004 8:44:43 AM PST by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is a war room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_love_weather
I think you are wrong here. This is not a question of your beliefs versus his beliefs. Believe it or not, this is not about you. This is about what the people of this country want the definition of marriage to be. Clearly they want it to be man/woman. There may be a constitutional amendment to designate it as such. You nor I have to right to live our lives in any way we please. We are not living in Utopia but in a country governed by laws and some of those laws have to do with how we live. At this point the last word has not been said. So until then, try to remember this is not all about you.
47 posted on 02/04/2004 8:44:50 AM PST by cajungirl (John Kerry has no botox and I have a bridge to sell you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
See post #16 please.
48 posted on 02/04/2004 8:45:36 AM PST by KantianBurke (Principles, not blind loyalty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk
If Pres. Bush doesn't support stopping this slide into Sodomite Hell via a Constitutional amendment, he doesn't deserve to be President, and say hello to Pres. Kerry.

The president has absolutely no Constitutional role to play in this issue at all. The president may not propose a Constitutional amendment (unlike other legislation), nor is his signature required anywhere in the process of ratification.

To the extent that this is a federal issue, it will first be played out at the Supreme Court, and then, ultimately in Congress.

49 posted on 02/04/2004 8:46:34 AM PST by Maceman (Too nuanced for a bumper sticker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
Well then bring on the constitutional amendment...and let's see how the people vote.

I don't have a problem with that.

50 posted on 02/04/2004 8:46:49 AM PST by I_love_weather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-593 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson