Mass becomes first state to Legalize Gay Marriage

[Gatito Grande]

The person writing the following (excerpts from an open letter) is a regular poster at alt. religion. christianity-episcopal. I don't think he's a crank.

Quote:

---

Non-legally trained people are being misled by the media. Our decision was far more decisive than the AP would make it. I'm a lawyer by training. I can "decipher" judicial decisions.



The general media is bending over backward to find ways to deny the inevitable. It is as if they simply do not want to read the words of the decision. Let me offer my legal opinion.



The only real question is what the Court will do if the legislature has not

acted at the end of the 180 day grace period. They left no room for any

action by the legislature other than to amend the marriage laws to remove

references to gender. As "Attorney Sokolove" is prone to say, "and that's

that!". The role left to the legislature is perfunctory and clerical.



This is NOT the Vermont decision even though the initial reports from the AP

and others actually said it was. The legislature is not free to substitute

"civil unions" for marriage rights. The Vermont court's decision was cast

in terms that said marriage conferred certain fundamental rights -- those

rights flowed from it. What that decision said was that that set of

fundamental rights had to be available to all. Thus, under the Vermont

decision, those fundamental rights could be afforded though the vehicle of

civil union legislation. The Vermont decision intentionally left that

option open.



But this decision is VERY different. Right smack dab in the middle of this

opinion this court devoted two paragraphs to clearly stating that it was not

requiring that a set of fundamental rights be afforded gay folk, but it

defined MARRIAGE as THE fundamental right that it was protecting. The

legislature has the option, of course, to change the rights and obligations

that flow from heterosexual civil marriage and afford only those to both

gays and straights. It can "water down" what marriage means to

heterosexuals as well as to homosexuals. But it CANNOT under this ruling

create two classes of rights and privileges based on sexual orientation. It

cannot under our court's ruling meet the requirements of the court's

decision without calling it civil marriage.



Significantly, this Court also went to pains to make it clear that it was

redefining the term marriage as used in the common law. It took the

approach of the Ontario Court. No room, whatsoever, was left for

legislative "tinkering". No word games are possible within the deftly

crafted language of this decision. It read the right to marry into our

Constitution and said it was a right that MUST be afforded to all.



The opponents also cannot win their case through hopes for a federal

constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage. It is long accepted at the

national Supreme Court level that states are free, under our federal system,

to afford their citizens greater rights than are recognized under the

federal constitution. The Supreme Court would uphold the decision of the

Mass court, based on our constitution, in a heart beat.



So, the reality, whether the media, the opponents, or the legislature is

willing at the moment to accept it, (they appear unwilling to face reality)

is that the only thing opponents is amend the Constitution. That is the

ONLY way around the decision. Let's face it. They will not only initiate

an attempt to do so, will have success in the short term in pushing that

process forward, and unfortunately will probably, given the thinness of our

popular support, be the ultimate winners. But they cannot achieve that,

formally, before a general popular vote in 2006.



So, we are guaranteed a minimum of a year and half to a maximum of three

years during which gay men and women WILL BE ALLOWED to marry in this state.

---

GG I soooooo hope he's right Out

[drlloyd11]

www.boston.com/news/local..._marriage/



50% in poll back SJC ruling on gay marriage

By Frank Phillips and Rick Klein, Globe Staff, 11/23/2003



Massachusetts residents, by a solid margin, said they supported the Supreme Judicial Court's landmark decision legalizing gay marriage, according to a Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll.







The poll of 400 people, the first survey of Bay State residents since the court's historic ruling, indicated that 50 percent agreed with the justices' decision, and 38 percent opposed it. Eleven percent expressed no opinion.



The poll also indicated that a majority opposed efforts by the Legislature, Governor Mitt Romney, and Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly to block same-sex marriages and allow civil unions instead.



A majority, 53 percent, also opposed a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriages by defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Thirty-six percent supported the amendment.



The amendment would have to be approved by voters to go into effect, and the results suggested it may face an uphill fight. The earliest it could be on the ballot is November 2006 -- 2 1/2 years after the SJC's ruling becomes effective.



In the poll, Massachusetts was depicted in sharp contrast to national sentiment on the highly charged issue.



A national poll of 1,515 people released by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press last Tuesday found that Americans surveyed solidly opposed legalizing gay marriage by 59 to 32 percent.



In April, a Globe/WBZ-TV poll of 400 Massachusetts residents found 50 percent supported gay marriage and 44 percent opposed it.



The poll, conducted by KRC Communications Research of Newton, was taken Wednesday and Thursday. It had a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points.



Last week, in a ruling with national implications, the state's highest court said 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."



In the poll, the decision was supported most strongly by women, college graduates, Democrats, and people under 65. Republicans opposed it and men were evenly divided on the issue.



The court gave the Legislature 180 days to recraft current laws to conform with the ruling. Some constitutional specialists say the ruling leaves no room for Beacon Hill leaders to offer anything but civil marriage rights to same-sex couples.



But some political leaders, including Romney and Reilly, said the court gave lawmakers room to create a civil-union system that stops short of allowing gay marriage.



The survey, however, indicated that more than half of residents do not want the Legislature to stand in the way of gay marriage.



Fifty-three percent said they want lawmakers to do nothing to block the implementation of the court ruling or to adjust the laws only so that they conform with the SJC opinion.



Bill Luff, 32, who responded to the poll, said he agreed with the court that gays and lesbians have a right to marry. He said the Legislature and governor should concentrate on easing the way for same-sex couples to wed.



"If people want to be together, who cares, let them," said Luff, a nightclub owner who lives in Worcester. "If anything, they should make it easier. Why should they ban it or make it harder just because you don't believe in it?"



Sixteen percent said they want the governor and legislators to defy the court's 4-to-3 ruling. Another 23 percent said Romney and lawmakers should pass legislation that would provide benefits and rights for gay couples, but limit marriage to heterosexuals.



Romney and legislators who oppose the court's decision are pushing for the amendment to ban gay marriage.



But Tarah Bird, a 24-year-old West Yarmouth resident who responded to the poll, said she does not want to see the constitution amended to strip gay couples of the right to wed.



"If two people love each other, they should have the right to get married," said Bird, who recently moved from New Jersey. "I don't understand why they couldn't just deem it the same, and let them be married."



Romney has suggested the state should, along with amending the constitution, pass a civil union law that would provide some benefits and rights for gay couples.



That approach was supported by 37 percent of those polled. His position was opposed by 44 percent. Another 4 percent had no opinion.



Gerhard Hassler, a 75-year-old poll respondent from Framingham, said the court overstepped its bounds by declaring a right to gay marriage.



He said he supports Romney's efforts to ban gay marriage through the constitution but still allow gay couples to join in civil unions.



Hassler also cited his Catholic faith for why he believes marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples.



"They should make a civil thing for them" in the Legislature, said Hassler, a retired travel agent and a registered Republican. "I don't feel that the court should decide these kinds of things. The court is there, really, to be sure that the laws which are current are enforced."



Allen Schultz, a retired Brandeis University economist who was also polled, supported that idea.



Marriage, he said, should be only between a man and a woman, but he added that the Legislature should concentrate on identifying what rights should be afforded to gay couples in some version of civil unions.



"They can call it anything but marriage -- call it `bananas,' or anything," said Schultz, 63, of Watertown. "Then spell out what rights they have, and what obligations they have, and what obligations the state has to them."



The poll indicated that the court case has generated unusually high interest from the public. More than 90 percent of those who responded said they were aware of the court's ruling, which was one or two days old when they were being asked about it.



Legislators, who are trying to deal with the complicated legal and emotionally charged issue, say they are receiving hundreds of e-mails and phone calls about it.



Among women, 55 percent agreed with the justices' decision, and 35 percent disagreed, the Globe/WBZ poll showed. Men are more evenly split, with 44 percent agreeing and 42 percent disagreeing.



The court's decision also draws strong support from Democrats, young and middle-age people, registered independents, and college graduates.



Catholics surveyed were evenly divided on the ruling, as were Protestants.



The Archdiocese of Boston declared its strong opposition to the ruling when the justices released the opinion last week.



The Archdiocese urged the Legislature to block implementation of a system that would grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.



© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

[skittles]

this article/column has some absolutely excellent points about marriage in general & then connects that to the current debate....



definitely worth reading....

Quote:

---

Dearly beloved, let's get real



BY SUSAN AGER

FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

November 23, 2003



A new war is building in our cities and towns after the Massachusetts Supreme Court last week legalized gay marriage.



Conservatives are gearing up against gay couples in love, fighting to protect what they call the sanctity of marriage.



The what?



Here are few other news headlines last week:



* Scott Peterson was bound over for trial on charges he murdered his pregnant wife, then dumped her over the side of his fishing boat. His mistress is expected to testify.



* Michael Jackson was arrested on multiple charges of lewd behavior with children. He has been married and divorced twice. One of his children was borne by a woman he never married.



* In England, Prince Charles greeted George W. Bush on the president's official state visit. Charles cheated on his former wife, Diana, who cheated on him. He is currently sharing quarters with his longtime girlfriend.



* President Bush has been married only once. We believe he's been faithful to his wife, but then we believed that about Roosevelt, Eisenhower and JFK. We never believed it about Clinton, though, even when we elected him twice to the White House. The details of his dalliances are better known on this planet than anyone else's.



He's still married, at least on paper. He and his wife apparently respect the sanctity of marriage.



For better, for worse



In this country we allow any two looney-tunes to marry, no matter their attitudes or their intentions. We allow people to marry even if they've failed at marriage six times before. People marry on a whim in Las Vegas. People marry with no plan to produce children. Neither getting married nor staying married means you're having sex. Those married people who do have sex define sex in a thousand ways. Some of them do to each other in bed what some gay men and lesbians do, too.



Here are my questions about the raging opposition to gay marriage:



What are opponents afraid of?



What are any of us afraid of?



Let's engage some common sense.



To have and to hold



My marriage is my marriage, no matter who else is getting married. People are marrying less -- and later -- than they used to, but marriage continues to be a condition most people seek. There's something about it that sounds steady and safe. And while many of us never find it, most of us long for a love that will last as long as we do and for a partner who will hold our hand as we let go of our last breath.



Marriage doesn't guarantee that, but it generally glues a creaking relationship longer than mere cohabitation does. And society smiles upon those bound by the gravity of their marriage vows to stick it out and work it out.



We're foolish to deny that union to any two adults willing to accept the legal, financial and social benefits and responsibilities of married life. If we want to encourage stability, let's encourage it for everyone.



Already, half of Fortune 500 companies grant equal benefits to same-gender couples as to married couples. Our neighbor, Canada, plus four states (including Massachusetts) and a growing number of cities do, too.



Yes, yes, I hear some heterosexuals saying. "That's OK. Civil unions are fine. Give 'em whatever health and pension benefits they want, and let 'em visit each other in hospital ICUs.



"But marriage? Marriage is ours and ours alone."



My question is simple:



Why?



SUSAN AGER's column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday in the Detroit Free Press. Contact her at 313-222-6862 or ager@freepress.com.

---

skittles



The world isn't worse than it used to be... the news coverage we get is just a lot better..

.. ok, there's a lot more of it, but it's not necessarily better quality news..

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

"They can call it anything but marriage -- call it 'bananas,' or anything," said Schultz, 63, of Watertown.

---

Or here's another idea: if two 'phobes want to wed, they can call their union "onemanonewomanage." Everyone else (easily recognized as those *not* having their heads up their arses) can stick w/ "marriage."



GG Speaking of bananas . . . Out

[Ittybittykitty]

Yay for the commonwealth! Happy to be a registered voter for this state I must say

[Imjustme]

and also WOOOOO!!!!! On a semi related note...I just read an EVER so lovely article in the paper (note sarcasm) in response to that. According to general FaschistyouWILLdowhatIsayordie (ok that's not REALLY his name but I couldn't remember and it was close enough) "Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period." Don't you just love the period part *gags* *kicks him in his tiny tiny (edit).

[kukalaka]

*joins the kicking*



And yay for those judges. Also, the rationals they gave were great. I really can't see any room for "misunderstandings" there. But then, I'm neither a Republican nor a politician.

[marcenik]

All of us down here in Little Rhody are very happy for you Mass Kittens, perhaps some of that marriagey goodness will trickle down I-95 to the Ocean State.



In response to the Right-wing religious right ignorant uneducated clueless folks who want to "protect" the "sanctity" of marriage. I have a few ideas:



1) Tear down all Las Vegas Drive-Thru Wedding Chapels



2) Remove from the air all TV shows the likes of "Joe Millionaire" "The Bachelor/Bachelorette" "How to Marry a Millionaire" etc.



3) Put a 1 year waiting period for the period you apply for a marriage license and when you can actually get married. During this time both parties must go to "Marriage Training Sessions" where they learn things like, communication, honesty and trust.



and last but not least:



4) - Make divorce illegal -



Make people think long and hard about whether or not they are TRULY ready to embark on the journey that is called marriage.

Maybe I live in a fantasy world, but my parents were together for 27 years, until death did they part, so that was my relationship role model - that is who I am, a forever kind of gal.

[Gatito Grande]

Here's the text of an action alert I received from HRC :

Quote:

---

Urge your Senator to oppose S.J. Res. 26!



Last night, two days before Thanksgiving, five US Senators* introduced Senate Joint Resolution 26, a harmful and divisive Senate counterpart to the anti-gay "Federal Marriage Amendment" that has been unfortunately gaining support in the House since May. This resolution seeks to amend the U.S. Constitution to discriminate against GLBT families by defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

*Wayne Allard, R-Colo.; Sam Brownback, R-Kan.; JimBunning, R-Ky.; James Inhofe, R-Okla.; and Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. introduced the resolution.



It is vital that you contact your Senators at their district office and urge them to oppose S.J. Res. 26! Your Senators need to hear from you while they're in their district offices throughout the month of December!



To look up your Senators and their district office phone numbers, click here or visit:



capwiz.com/hrc/dbq/officials/



The amendment seeks to permanently deny the right to marry, as well as virtually all other forms of legal recognition to same-sex couples, including the most basic legal protections. It further seeks to circumvent the right of state legislatures and courts to make decisions on basic government-administered protections, thereby forever denying gay and lesbian Americans fundamental rights and benefits such as hospital visitation, Social Security, inheritance and healthcare benefits.



The opposition is gearing up with phone calls and letters and we need to do the same. Please call your Senators today!



Click here or visit tinyurl.com/wo87read HRC’s full press release on S.J. Resolution 26.

---

GG The Right-wing 'phobic b*stards look like they're trying to slip this by in the pre-Christmas rush: DON'T LET THEM! Out