Mass. High Court Rules for Gay Marriage

Associated Press Writer ^ | Wed, Feb 04, 2004 | JENNIFER PETER

[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.

[xzins]

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.

[xzins]

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.

[apackof2]

Dear Lord help us.........

[cajungirl]

Do you feel ever so cool saying that knee jerk little statement?

[COEXERJ145]

Be gone troll.

[I_love_weather]

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.

[biblewonk]

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.

[whereasandsoforth]

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?

[tomahawk]

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.

[Dane]

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.

[tomahawk]

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.

[RightWingAtheist]

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.

[Just mythoughts]

This is not about "EQUAL RIGHTS"! Talk about deception!

[azhenfud]

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".

[COEXERJ145]

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.

[Petronski]

AP Photo Slideshow: Same-Sex Marriage Issues

Ick.

[cajungirl]

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.

[tomahawk]

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.

[KantianBurke]

"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.

[Dane]

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.