Posted on 03/31/2006 5:46:46 PM PST by mathprof
Citing polling that suggests opposition to same-sex marriages is receding, gay rights advocates expressed confidence on Friday that such weddings would spread, despite a ruling by Massachusetts' highest court that bars homosexuals from other states from marrying there.
Activists on both sides of the issue were awaiting a court ruling on whether Washington will follow Massachusetts and become the second U.S. state to legalize gay marriage, at least among residents.
``Washington state's Supreme Court right now, any day, is going to deliver their ruling on marriage, so it's something that we've been waiting for a while now to happen,'' said Brad Luna of gay rights group Human Rights Campaign.
After hearing arguments in March 2005, Washington state's top court will decide whether to overturn two lower court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage. The case was brought by eight same-sex couples denied marriage licenses.
Legal challenges seeking permission for gays and lesbians to marry are pending in 10 states. New Jersey's Supreme Court is expected to rule this year on a bid for gay marriage. Two cases are also winding through New York's court system and could end up in the state's highest court this year.
Massachusetts's highest court ruled in 2003 that it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, paving the way for America's first same-sex marriages in May the following year.
But on Thursday, that court quashed any chance of Massachusetts becoming the nation's gay wedding capital, ruling that homosexual couples from states that ban same-sex marriages cannot legally be wed in Massachusetts.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
George W. Bush was reelected in part due to gay marriage bans on several state ballots. I don't see the public any more supportive now.
Incidentally, doesn't Washington state have a mechanism for such a ballot measure?
If they feel the public's more supportive, then allow MASS residents to vote on whether to ban it in the '06 elections.
Do I hear silence?
Basically we have people trying to gin up acceptance with massaged polls, but few politicians have the guts to stand up for gay marriage (except Gavin, and is Barney supporting it yet?) proving those polls are a lie.
My response is IF this is so, Democrats should support it in their '06 platform. I dare them to do so.
Having only read the title, I thought this was about queers fighting in divorce court. Sounded like a good cat fight.
NYT homosexual staff wishful thinking.
I don't see any relaxing of the oposition to homosexual marriage and the desire of voters to NOT endorse homosexual based marriage.
If anything this is a wining issue for conservatives.
The articles is written to come up on a Lexis search as a pro-homosexual trend. The authors are spining to block the fact every single marriage amendment has passed.
These polls are a never ending cascade of lies.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
My response is IF this is so, Democrats should support it in their '06 platform. I dare them to do so.
Reverend Al Sharpton could wed 1000 homosexuals and the DNC could have 500 portable public toilets for honeymoon suites...
"If anything this is a wining issue for conservatives."
I think you may have misspelled a word there. Did you mean to put in another "n," or an "h?" It makes a difference.
"then allow MASS residents to vote on whether to ban it in the '06 elections"
They will never allow us to vote on it, because they know we will vote it down, even in Massachusetts where we have Barney Frank-n-beans. If the gubmint is going to be involved in marriage at all, we need a marriage amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman of consenting age.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.