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.

[Modernman]

But you do know that the gay lobby has made it impossible to ask a blood donor if he is gay,,am I correct on that still?

I gave blood recently, and the question was there. Though, it was couched as whether, if male, you'd had sex with another man. Seems to make sense, since there would be no real reason to exclude lesbians from giving blood.

[BlackElk]

It is also time to end lifetime tenure for federal judges.

[Kahonek]

"Courts do not order the People to pass laws in republics."

The Court did not order the People to pass any law in this case. They stayed their ruling temporarily to let them pass any law they wanted, if they chose to.

[Modernman]

Therefore, those who participate in the act harm themselves.

Even among heterosexuals? Even as part of a more general procreative regime?

Since they are also members of society, they harm society, just as a single broken egg damages a dozen eggs.

How so? Nobody in a society has a duty to procreate. Do you propose requiring everyone to have X number of children during their lifetime?

Such is certainly the case regarding sodomy. This crime strikes at the heart of society, since without procreation society itself ceases to exist.

If an individual chooses no to procreate, that is no business of society.

[Kahonek]

"I have an awfully hard time believing that it gives the Judicial Court the power to order legislation to be passed."

The Court did not order any legislation to be passed.

[BlackElk]

Other than as to quarantine, I believe that I have agreed with every word you have posted on this whole thread. Terrific job! Congratulations.

[Modernman]

No, it is not anarchy. It is not the job of the courts to demand legislation. Their job is to interpret the laws and not to demand that the laws be changed.

I have no idea whether or not this is true under Mass. law or its constitution. Considering the lack of outcry from Mass. legislators, my feeling is that they do not really object to this ruling.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

A few hundred jailed illegals? Jail doesn't scare these people. Our jail system provides a higher standard of living than they're used to, so it is the ol' briar patch to them.

BTW, the Border Patrol catches more Europeans sneaking in down here than you would think. A bunch of Poles not so long ago...

As far as troops on food stamps... these are troops who have a bunch of kids they cannot afford to have. Isn't Bush's fault.

Post housing is improving every year. Took a very long time for it to get sub-standard. Didin't just happen on this President's watch.

Seems to me you are blaming Bush for everything bad that has happened since the Titanic went down. Get a clue!

[Dalan]

"How can you write a marriage law that prohibits discrimination without allowing marriage between siblings..."

Indeed. Wether we're talking about incestuous relationships, polygamy, polyamory, bestiality, whatever, it's all the same now that we've redefined (or more accurately, "undefined") marriage to now include homosexual couples.

If the argument for traditional one-man-one-woman marriage is only an ambiguous moral argument open to interpretation, what possible basis can there be to exclude the recognition of any other sort of "relationship" that someone may dream up?

That the Left and the gay community so casually discards this obvious consequence is astounding, and intellectually dishonest.

[highlander_UW]

Sounds like the nation is moving forward. A victory for human rights...

Sodomy is both a right and progressive? Interesting. And you base this upon what grounds?

[rintense]

You are correct. If one state recognizes gay marriage, and another doesn't, this issue will cascade into a bunch of squabbling between states, and their governments. Stop the inevitable and put this to a vote for ALL Americans to decide.

[Kahonek]

"So the court "rules" on gay marriage. What if the legislature in Mass. does diddly squat on the ruling and essentially ignores them????"

Then gay marriage will still happen. It doesn't take legislative action. The Court redefined existing terms in the law. They didn't order the legislature to do anything.

[jjm2111]

your welcome. :)

[Kahonek]

The legislature doesn't have to follow any court order. The courts interpret and enforce the law. They've just decided to interpret this law differently. They didn't order the legislature to do anything.

[Kahonek]

"Since when does the court get to dictate what laws the legislature should pass? This court order is invalid on the face of it and should be completely ignored."

What "order" are you talking about?

[azhenfud]

"How can you write a marriage law that prohibits discrimination without allowing marriage between siblings..."

You know, that's a good question. All states that restrict/prohibit kinship marriages do so citing they're protecting the public's general health, safety, and welfare. Why can't they cite the same prohibition excuses for gay marriage (since it's known to be detrimental and costly) and just leave it at that?

[Modernman]

They didn't order the legislature to do anything.

Good point. Missed it among all the rhetoric flying back and forth.

[AdamSelene235]

Libertinarianism on parade. The rest of us will hide the household pets for their own protection lest the libertinarians take advantage of them while in the neighborhood.

Actually, libbys have a hard time understanding why anyone would want the gooberment involved in their marriage at all.

Say, you don't have one those cute little terriers, do ya.

[El Gato]

The ball is in your court Mr. President.

Why, there is no federal issue here, not yet anyway. This is between the MA Courts and legislature, and eventually the Governor.

[highlander_UW]

Why is it ever a contest between the lesser of two evils?

Because there is so much evil to go around.