5 years on, gay marriage debate fades in Massachusetts

AP ^ | 5.09.09 | David Crary

[libh8er]

WHITINSVILLE, Mass., – Twenty years after he met the love of his life, nearly five years after their wedding helped make history, it took a nasty bout of pneumonia for Gary Chalmers to fully appreciate the blessings of marriage.

"I was out of work for eight weeks, spent a week in the hospital," Chalmers said. "That was the first time I really felt thankful for the sense of the security we had, with Rich there, talking with the physicians, helping make decisions. ... It really made a difference."

At stake was the most basic recognition of marital bonds — something most spouses take for granted. But until May 17, 2004, when Chalmers and Richard Linnell were among a surge of same-sex couples marrying in Massachusetts, it was legally unavailable to American gays and lesbians.

Since that day, four other states — Connecticut in 2008, and Iowa, Vermont and Maine this year — have legalized same-sex marriage, and more may follow soon. A measure just approved by New Hampshire's legislature awaits the governor's decision on whether to sign. But Massachusetts was the first, providing a five-year record with which to gauge the consequences.

At the time of those first weddings, the debate was red-hot — protests were frequent, expectations ran high that legislators would allow a referendum on whether to overturn the court ruling ordering same-sex marriage. Now, although Roman Catholic leaders and some conservative activists remain vocally opposed, there is overwhelming political support for same-sex marriage and no prospect for a referendum.

[yadent]

I still believe the government should be out of the marriage business. Most gays I know/work with either become quiet or explode with rage when I state that opinion. Strangely alot of conservatives also become angry.......

[WashingtonSource]

This story is a BIG LIE. The people of Massachusetts are still angry about this. There is a huge organization, Mass Resistance, that continues to fight against the intrusion of radical homoseuxal propaganda into every facet of life, especially indoctrination in public schools.

[ReformationFan]

“I still believe the government should be out of the marriage business. Most gays I know/work with either become quiet or explode with rage when I state that opinion.”

Perhaps because many(not necessarily all, but many) of them have come to love the idea of the state being used to persecute those who disagree with them on this issue. If they were really “live and let livers” they wouldn’t care in the slightest whether anyone else approved of their relationships or not. But many don’t like how others’ disapproval of their lifestyle and actions hurts their consciences hence they want the state to punish dissenters in an effort to make them feel better about themselves. It’s no coincidence that many homosexual persons love fascism and communism.

[Diogenesis]

Gay marriage in Massachusetts had EVERYTHING to do with Mitt Romney
and his usurpation of the Mass. Constitution (carpetbagger and backstabber that he is).

"Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage"
"What he (Governor/Dictator Mitt Romney) did was exercise illegal legislative authority'
"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.

Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."

[Dilbert San Diego]

Exactly! I hate factual errors in news stories. The facts are that Mass. voters collected a record number of signatures to put this issue on the ballot for the voters to decide. Under Mass. law, the legislature also must vote to put a proposed initiative on the ballot. The Mass. legislature adjourned so as to kill the consideration of this measure. There is strong support to put it on the ballot and vote. But political manuvering killed the chance for the people to have their say.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Good point. The end game for the gay activists is to have legalized group marriage, any number of partners, any sex of partners.

Their goal was to first get the concept of same-sex marriage established in the law. Then, once that concept is established, they plan to move on to legalized polygamy/polyamory. Once the sex barrier in marriage is destroyed, the next barrier to be destroyed is the concept of monogamy.

And the gays will have useful idiots in the MSM, Hollywood, and the underground polygamists. The polygamists would like legal status for their marriages too.

[Secret Agent Man]

Please post these with a barf alert.

[madprof98]

Want to know why the “mainstream” press is dead? Unpaid infomercials like this one, courtesy of AP.

[Sparky1776]

As I said, only a fool would think so. You’re obviously not from Massachusetts.

[Diogenesis]

Obviously, English is not your first language or you
are part of Team Romney.

Read the urls. Romney forced the issue which was
against the Constitution (which is why the Clerks protested).

How are things in NH and La Jolla, Mitt?

[Sparky1776]

It’s not that I’m part of “Team Romney” it is that I can spot a smear merchant a mile away. Since I live here, and am one of a few registered Republicans in the Commonwealth I don’t need to click on your URLs, I lived through it and was called a homophobe for several years, even had my car tagged. And I know Romney opposed it.

The entire Congressional Delegation is Democrat, the SJC enacted same sex marriage and WAS NOT about to reverse itself, the Republicans back then were outgunned 34 to 6 in the Mass Senate, 139 to 21 in the House. It is even worse now.

The independently elected Attorney General (hence not under any Governor’s control), a Democrat, was in FAVOR of same sex marriage. He wasn’t going to fight it.

Even an IDIOT can see Romney, Reagan, Jesus Christ himself, would had no power under the US Constitution nor under the more liberal Mass State Constitution to stop same sex marriage in Massachusetts.

Deal with it, and stop the smearing.

[Diogenesis]

Listen, FRiend. You are a part of Team Romney.

It is not a "smear" to post the FACT that Romney usurp the Mass. Constitution, and that NOTHING would HAVE happened except for Romney (your friend, apparently).

Read this, and admit it. Or we will deal with the fact that you are a functional RomneyBOT.

"Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage"
"What he (Governor/Dictator Mitt Romney) did was exercise illegal legislative authority'
"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.

Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."

[Leisler]

"Titus said it would have been good to see what would have happened if Romney had defied the court's opinion. "

There is a strong passivity about Mitt, vis a vis rugged politics. He bailed out on investigating his Utah friends in Olympic corruption. He showed no interest in the Bid Dig corruption until someone got killed. He wouldn't reach out to local Republicans or conservative Democrats and get them Judgeships, he presided over the last rights of the state GOP and seems to be sucking the last bit out of the national GOP, and as you point out in the FAGOO marriage circus, he in John Kerry fashion was for it before he was against it. He is a desperate, sad man, typical of too many of those obsessed with office winning.

[ViLaLuz]

This already is drinking demon blood.

[Elsie]

5 years on, gay marriage debate fades in Massachusetts

 

 

HALLELUJAH!!!  Our prayers are being answered!!

---

---

 

 

 

 

 

Do not be deceived!

 

Do not be deceived!

 

Do not be deceived!

 

Do not be deceived!

 

 

Do not be deceived!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Corinthians 6:9   

 

  Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?

Do not be deceived:

Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 There are 'churches' (spit) that say, "It's ok...."    They are LYING!!!!

[BlackVeil]

It may indeed be a bullshit argument, but this is a very newsworthy article. It features two homosexual men who married 5 years ago, and are still together. Amazing!

[campaignPete R-CT]

yes, let the court order the troops to enforce the law. Where was Mitt’s effort to impeach one judge? I think he thought it was a laughable idea. Mitt: Leadership for the Future! right.

[Leisler]

He had the authority, and he didn’t, not once, nominate his own person for judgeship. I mean, what’s up with that?

He couldn’t care less. It was a bother. From the beginning being Governor was just a doormat to step on into the White House.

He’s really really lying to us now, saying he’s a conservative. He isn’t. What he is, is unprincipled ambition, and no thanks, Washington is full up of unprincipled ambition.

[longtermmemmory]

AP propaganda in order to push the “indoctrination” aspects.

This AP story is a search engine fodder in order to give students something to find when those students write on assignments.

The debate is not dead, the PUBLIC at large rejects homosexual based marriage, the paid for politicians simply rigged the game to deny representation.

[longtermmemmory]

thre rules are not draconian. They keep out the opportunists and thieves. If anybody wants to have their friend (or whatever) have access to their medical records/hospital stay a simple one page permission can do it.

The “security” claim is 100% BS from this AP propaganda story. This is not reporting this is big lie Goebles in action.