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.

[cajungirl]

Your post 35,,I didn't know that. How is it done? That may be the key! Thanks.

[I_love_weather]

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

Ummm no I just wanted to change my nick. Doesn't mean a person is banned if they want a new nick.

/roll eyes

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

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

This is why the terrorists want us all dead.

There will not be a more devisive issue in this year's presidential race.

This trumps Iraq by a mile.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Can ayone imagine the danger of having a President from this Leftist element? (ie. John Kerry)

[tomahawk]

I'm prepared to give him time. But the longer he takes, the more the base loses its trust.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Check the Richter scale. Rosie O'Donnell must be jumping for joy.

[jimt]

A victory for human rights...

No, a victory for political correctness.

There is no "right" to redefine a word that has for millenia meant one thing.

If the judges are allowed to do this, suit should be immediately filed to really change the definition. There's absolutely no logical grounds to restrict the new "marriage" to "two" "persons".

Multiple partners should be fine, animals should be fine, inanimate objects should be fine, etc.

It's a ludicrous, but politically correct position, for the Mass SC to pander to homosexuals, as they're the cause de jure.

[Diddle E. Squat]

All the speculation seems to be on a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. Just wondering (in case such an amendment process should fail) what abount an amendment to the 'Full faith and credit clause' of the constitution?

Could be tricky, and if done wrong open a huge can of worms. OTOH it could be away to reverse the tide and strengthen states rights.

Of course the latter might be even more difficult to get passed (every Dem would scream that it is 'code language' for giving Southern states the ability to reinstitute slavery), but does not the states rights angle of it hold a big upside?

[jwalsh07]

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

Every American is endowed with the same rights and privileges. Anybody can enjoy the privileges and responsibilities afforded to those who are married as long as they satisfy the requirements of marriage, to wit, one man and one woman.

[KantianBurke]

If he has no role then WTF did he bring the issue up in his SOTU address? Or why has his response been "I've got my lawyers looking at it?" Regardless by mentioning that in his speech, he's identified himself with such a proposal and it would be in his interest to expand upon it. Or would you rather he be seen as all talk and no hat?

[Jim Noble]

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.

Actually, the Federal government is obliged to guarantee Massachusetts a republican form of government (Article IV, s4)

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

[Allen In Texas Hill Country]

Right on moniker. Another conservative athiest. Got to be millions of us out here. And we don't even need or use the bible to understand the utter depths of depravity of gay marriage.

There is no right to privacy in the US Constitution and 99% of all state laws are ABOUT morality. Most Federal laws are too. It is perfectly proper to discriminate against gays in many parts of our society. Not necessarily the workplace mind you but in many many others, like the military for starters.

[cinFLA]

This makes the Full Faith and Credit clause that much more interesting... Gay marriage has just been made legal in all 50 states.

Please research the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act.

[Tree of Liberty]

I was expecting the president to stop gay marriage, or else

All the President can do is throw his support behind the amendment and use the bully pulpit to persuade Congress to take up the matter. Constitutionally, the amendment process is solely within the purview of the U.S. Congress and the many states. The President has no legitimate vested authority in the matter beyond that of being a citizen.

[Just mythoughts]

and Hillary!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Pictures of Kerry kissing the bride and bride can only help Bush in November.

[Aquinasfan]

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.

The bishop of Worcester mandated a postcard campaign for all parishes in the diocese supporting a vote on the constitutional amendment. Pre-printed postcards addressed to state reps and senators were provided in the back of church, priests urged parishioners to sign them, and the Church provided postage.

[BlackElk]

Why the President?

The ball is in the court of the Massachusetts Lavender Loving Judicial Court. It is up to the Massachusetts General Court (its state legislature), acting as a constitutional convention, to propose an amendment to the state constitution reversing the Judicial Court's idjit attack on civilization, to narrowly circumscribe the powers of the Judicial Court and subsidiary courts on such issues, and to allow for Romney to pack the court for now with n better reason than the lavender attack on marriage decision. Leave the ground where the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court once stood flat, black and glowing in the dark. Then it will be up to Romney to appoint sane judges to the seats. Meanwhile, until the constitutional amendment can be enacted and enforced (including the court packing), defy the court and refuse to obey its clearly ultra vires ruling. Make that court and appropriate example and a warning to courts everywhere that there ARE limits.

Now, that is the moderate solution. We can also get really angry and act accordingly. That has happened in Boston more than two hundred years ago.

[snooker]

Lurch to the left with Ro-Bo-Tox

Bet this will be a big boost for Kerry, don't you.