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.

[hchutch]

Well, Dubya can't say he didn't warn them...

[Jim Noble]

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

Facially unconstitutional.

This Supreme Court will overrule it in five minutes.

[cajungirl]

I do believe you are right,,Kerry must be sweating now. War Protestor, now gay marriage supporter,,they guy is getting more and more out of the mainstream. I can't wait to see how this gets used! Not to mention his thinking terror is exaggerated. It would be tasteless but it would be nice to show a clip of him sayiing that followed by a clip of those people jumping out of that building with no other words. We can't do it, but it would be so powerful.

[jla]

Your beliefs are just that...your beliefs.

As are yours.
Now tell us exactly how you see a nation that condones homo-marriage as one that would be 'moving forward'.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

The President can do nothing about this other than what he has already done. He can only let the nation know he does not approve.

This is a State issue protected by the Constitution.

[Aquinasfan]

A victory for human rights...

The right to sodomy?

[cajungirl]

Oh ye of little faith. Some of us are getting a wee tired of the base threatening all the time. Don't you people understand the way things are? Nothing gets done yesterday.

[Diogenesis]

This is driven into the public by Ms. Marg. Marshall-a.k.a. Ms. Anthony Lewis (New York Times)

They remain eager to hoist their agenda come November, too.

[Zack Nguyen]

The instant Massachusetts has same-sex marriage, a suit will be brought in federal court. Then the USSC will be able to rule. The only thing stopping it would be a constitutional amendment.

[maeng]

Moving forward into what? More AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases, legal sodomy, no morals....just what are we moving forward into??

[Eastbound]

" . . . . beginning in mid-May."

When the flowers begin to bloom. Just in time to place a bouquet on the casket of America as we know it.

[jwalsh07]

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.

True, that is clear in Article 3 but they have demonstrated over and over again that they will do no such thing. It is politically much more difficult for the Congress to order the SCOTUS off of marriage than it is to find support for a Constitutional amendment.

Not my firts chocie either but it is the only viable choice remaining. The preponderance of states who have passed DOMA and those who are now moving toward DOMA due to the MSJC is clear evidence that an amendment to limit the full faith and credit clause vis a vis marriage is doable.

[Aquinasfan]

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

Why don't we eliminate all laws then?

[concerned about politics]

Time for that long awaited defense of marriage amendment, Mr.President. Remember who votes for you. You shouldn't have waited. The sexually dysfunctional will continue to push their vile lifestyles onto the rest of society. As president, you should have been aware of their history.
If Bush drops the ball on this one, the social conservatives will be furious. So far, I think he's hoping to win 2004 by default - where we don't vote for him (because of his trying to buy Democrat votes), but simply vote against the worst of two evils - vile Democrats.
Maybe he should re-think that gamble.

[tomahawk]

I want Pres. Bush to be relected as much as anyone, am giving money to his campaign regularly, and have volunteered to be a campaign worker.

But, I (and I know many others) consider this to be an extremely important issue, and we want to see him do all he can to preserve thousands of years of marriage being defined as between a man and a woman.

Besides, if he does this, he will pick up votes from Catholic and other religious Democrats and Independents and win reelection. This issue is actually a golden opportunity re-election-wise.

[kennedy]

I remember when the feminists were trying to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed. Opponents claimed that the ERA would open the door to recognition of gay marriages. Proponents said that was ridiculous, that no court would ever construe it that broadly.

It turns out that some courts didn't even need the ERA to "find" a constitutional right to gay marriage.

Every man has an equal right to marry a woman. Every woman has an equal right to marry a man. No man has a right to marry another man. No woman has a right to marry another woman. That is where the equal rights analysis should end.

[presidio9]

The right to sodomy?

Nope, the right to subsidization of Sodomy. What a glorious time we live in. -not.

[xzins]

I'd rather go for the touchdown and have the fed courts route be the backup.

The hold-up will be the Senate and their damnable cloture rules.

I'd hate to go to a constitutional convention, but it's something to consider.

[biblewonk]

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.

Yes and somehow we are almost lead to believe that he has the ability to stop gay marriage. But I suspect it is his enemies that want us to believe that so that we will be mad and take our votes elsewhere if he doesn't. We wind up shooting ourselves in the foot.

[Zack Nguyen]

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.

And neither does the court have the right to enforce its twisted morality on the rest of us. By enforcing homosexual marriage as a societal norm, there will be no way legal way to stop it from being taught in public schools across the country. In many places it is already.

Just so we are clear, this has nothing to do with equal rights. It has to do with using government force to radically change our culture.