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.

[Maceman]

The ball is in your court Mr. President.

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

[I_love_weather]

Actually I have been around since 2001 or so...not that anyone cares :) heh

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

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.

[xzins]

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.

[jwalsh07]

[Psalm 73]

Time for the Mass. State Legislature to tell the courts to take a hike. Period.

[cajungirl]

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.

[KantianBurke]

See post #16 please.

[Maceman]

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.

[I_love_weather]

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

I don't have a problem with that.

[Dane]

Actually I have been around since 2001 or so...not that anyone cares :) heh

So? that still doesn't give the court the right to write their own laws.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

So you must have had your account banned since you are back her under a different name.....

[Just mythoughts]

The Supremes have not exactly exhibited an ability to make sound decisions. Sandra Day gave "sodomy" a civil right.

[COEXERJ145]

Think about how long and hard it is to amend the Constitution. We've only done it 17 times since the founding of this nation and one amendment canceled another. (I'm not counting the Bill of Right as they're a special case in relation to Constitutional history.)

Removing the ability of the federal courts to hear such cases would be a quick, short term solution until a Constitutional Amendment could be passed.

[marshmallow]

So how will the good citizens of Massachusetts react to this latest outrage? Because the answer this nonsense does lie in the hands of the people.

They will react to it by continuing to overwhelmingly vote in liberal politicians who espouse this nonsense and these politicians will continue to appoint judges who subscribe to secular humanist liberalism.

In other words, the people of Massachusetts will be outraged not at all. This is simply a reflection of the corrupt, secular humanist values of the people.

America does not simply need a presidential edict to stop this nonsense. It needs a spiritual rebirth.

[cajungirl]

Sorry you are disappointed but he made his thoughts very clear in SOTU. Now just wait before you condemn him. Things happen in good time.

[Maceman]

See post #16 please.

See post #49 please.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Tommy Finneran to the rescue.

[Kieri]

I'm disgusted too, but think about it this way:

Polling shows 2/3 of all Americans do NOT support same-sex marriages.

Kerry voted AGAINST the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and supports FORCING states to accept homosexual "marriages" from other states!

President Bush is on the record when it comes to defending traditional marriage. He's with the American people.

The GOP will go after this like a dog with a moose thighbone.

This issue ALONE could doom Kerry, IMHO.

[tomahawk]

Presidential support for a Constitutional amendment can have a big impact on whether it gets enacted.

I expect the President to make his support for an amendment clear and soon.