Mass becomes first state to Legalize Gay Marriage

[drlloyd11]

http://www.boston.com

[cattwoman98111]

Wow! that is fantastic!



180 days away from a possible marriage licence.



Congradulations to all the people who helped bring this about.

I want it. Give it to me. I love it. 7-Year Bitch

[amazonchyck]

WOO HOO!



*does a little dance*



*makes a little love*



*gets down tonight*







('course...I anticipate the legislature is going to get a wee bit pissed at this, but...the way the court did it, they'll be hard-pressed to do anything about it until at least 2006)



amazonchyck

[The Smee]

I just heard about this on Radio 4, and I did a little happy dance at the dinner table. Go Massachusetts, it's your birthday, etc.

This has been a message brought to you by SmeeCorp.

[wolfwynd]

: shame I don't live in Mass **ahem** Congrats to those who this effects and lets hope sooner or later the whole world will finally see the light, even if it is rainbow coloured!!



Wolfy

[fluffylamb]

Wow, This is amazing. So far the poll on Boston.com lhas over 70% of respondents agreeing with the decision. There is going to be such a political firestorm here as the legislators decide on the wording of the new laws. I hope that we get true equal rights, not a separate, but equal deal. It's definitely time to write to the state reps.

Quote:

---

"The plaintiffs are members of our community, our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends. We share a common humanity .... Simple principles of decency dictate that we extendto the plaintiffs, and to their new status, full acceptance, tolerance, and respect. We should do so because it is the right thing to do."

-- SJC Justice John M. Greaney

---

"In fluent aphasia the subject talks at great length, but are unaware that what they are saying makes no sense."
Art said, "I know a lot of people with that problem." -Kim Stanley Robinson's Blue Mars

[MellindraX]

Damn proud to be a Massachusettsian right now

“All the higher life forms scythed away, just like that.”"Terrible."“Nothing but dust and fundamentalists.” –‘Good Omens’

I'm an idiot. Ask me how.

[Insane Oasis]

wow.. just wow..



and lucky me that i was just assigned a persuasive essay pertaining to legalizing Gay Marriages.. must be mine, and many others, lucky day.

"... And tolerance it ain't acceptance..."

-Amy Ray "Laramie"

[Sister Bertrille]

How proud am I of my state today! What is especially gratifying is the strong support the decision is receiving from straight Massachusetts residents -- the Boston Globe response page and poll and the calls to local radio stations are by and large in the "we all deserve the same rights" category. Sure we’re homicidal maniacs behind the wheel, but we are just being consistent when it comes to how we feel about our fellow citizens -- let's face it, sometimes it's good not to give two figs about your neighbors. Then you don't have the energy or the inclination to care about what they do in the privacy of their own homes. Now mind your own damn business!



Already, though, some of our local politicians are misbehaving. Governor Romney is talking about "3000 years of recorded history" (that puts us dead smack in the middle of... ancient Greece!), Tom "Speaker for Life" Finneran, an all-around turd, is vowing to place a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the 2006 ballot (a process that would take more than the 180 days granted to the legislature by the SJC, and the referendum may not even pass -- hee!), and fence-straddler John Kerry, while certainly not the devil (he was one of only six senators, Ted JFK too, who voted against DOMA) has just come out with his typical "While I don’t condone gay marriage (snore), I am for some type of civil recognition (snore) of gay partnerships (snore snore snore!)" Yes, and I don't condone paying full taxes for less than full civil rights!



Well, I'm off to yet another celebration -- maybe I'll get me a wife!



Margaret Marshall is god!



SB

[LokiPromise]

Thats wonderful news and heres hoping its the start of something big, which has been along time coming. This case should set an example for other states to follow.

BB:Hello Xander...and Anya, how is your money?!

A:Fine!Thank you for asking!

[eccentrictulip]

mitt romney is NOT a happy camper......he's going to be doing his best to overturn the decision, but then i expected no less from him......i found an article on yahoo and an address with some numbers you can call if you have something to say to him. i know i definitely do. in any case, i'm so proud to be in mass right now. this is a HUGE step in the right direction, and like everyone's been saying, hopefully the other states will follow suit.



From Yahoo news:



Gov. Mitt Romney disagreed with the decision saying that marriage should be an institution between just one man and one woman. He said that he is going to do all he can to stop marriage licenses from going out to non-traditional couples.



Romney said that he will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that will limit marriage to a man and a woman.



"Marriage is a relationship between a man and a women. The exact equivalent to marriage is also reserved to a man and a woman. Over the next several months, I will work with Legislative leadership and other legislators and community leaders to decide what kind of statute we can fashion, which is consistent with the law. We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the SJC Even if we don't agree with it, we are going to follow it in terms of preparing legislation. We will initiate a Constitution amendment process that will be consistent with what I think the feelings are of the people of the commonwealth," Romney said.



State House

Office of the Governor

Room 360

Boston, MA 02133

Phone: (617) 725-4005

FAX: (617) 727-9725

TTY: (617) 727-3666

~*I would like to be the air that inhabits your body for one moment

only. I would like to be that unnoticed and that necessary*~ Margaret

Atwood

[tyche]

This is excellent news, and I hope the legislature backs the decision.

Incidentally, CNN have a poll on their main page (scroll down to the bottom of the page) about whether the legislature should back this decision. So far, the poll is 44% yes, 56% no.

[BabyJune]

I nearly cried when I found out the decision today. I just started college in Massachusetts, and I just registered to vote. I honestly feel as though this is our opportunity as voters to shoot down the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment that will be proposed and make our voices heard. And remember folks, you will have 2 1/2 years (worst case scenario) in which to be married and forever recognized by the state. They can never take that away from you.

Does anyone know if, since this is a marriage law and not a civil union law, MA marriages will be recognized and honored in other states? If so, then I foresee a huge gay pilgrimage to the holy ground in 180 days.

"'Huh … h-… whu … nomina … wow,' Willow stammered out, her eyes darting everywhere as she tried to decide exactly which lovely expanse of skin she wanted to study. Closely. With her tongue."

-A Friendly Little Wager by Sassette

[lauriebear]

Awesome. I was jumping around when I heard it this morning.

Good ole Mass.

Send some of that love Connecticut's way.



Now instead of just crossing the border for cheaper gas and open places to buy beer.....we'll just have to take a day trip to get married!

[Tempest Duer]

*sigh* I'm wishing I lived in Massachusetts right now... instead I'm stuck in California with Conan the Barbarian as governor... but I praise you, Massachusetts. Maybe I'll pay you a visit.

I believe in the madness called "now."

[Moon to the Tide]

That. Is. Awesome.

[xita]

A whole new meaning to the term, "Boston Marriage."

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

[TexanZeppo256]

If i'm totally honest, then I must admit that my first reaction to the news was "dear lord, not now!"



I have been reading several Gallup polls and other articles that indicate that Bush would most probably make Gay Marraige a "wedge" issue in the 2004 election if the Mass. Supreme Court rulled in favor of Gay Marraige, which it has. I was therefore hoping against hope that the Court would postpone its rulling until late next year, effectively removing (or at least reducing) the risk of Gay Marraige becoming a wedge issue against which Democrats would have a hell of a time overcoming. However, now that it has happened, the chances of seeing some new people who are a little more gay-friendly on Capital Hill and/or in the White house have become that much slimmer.



But then, a few minutes later, I realized that what happened has happened, no point in mulling over what might have been, that we would just have to overcome whatever hardships this may bring, and that in the state of Mass. gay couples can get legally and unequivacably married. It was at that point that I got a silly grin plastered onto my face and I made random jumps of joy, which unfortunately drew the attention of my less-open-minded co-workers. *sigh* Oh well. Not everyone can be as enlightened as we kittens are, now can they?



The Crazy Straight Boy has spoken. You may now return to your daily humdrum

---------------------------------



There she is! There she is... ahh... Not so wounded as we were led to believe... So much the better. --Khan, "Star Trek II: WOK"



From The Land of Tolerance,

---The Texan Zeppo

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

Does anyone know if, since this is a marriage law and not a civil union law, MA marriages will be recognized and honored in other states?

---

Equals donnybrooks (to use a good Boston Irish phrase) in all 50 states (plus DC, plus the federal courts, plus the military, etc. etc.). DOMA will prevent any immediate recognition outside of Mass., but DOMA will itself be challenged (if it hasn't already: I'm not really sure).



Folks, the *second* that Mass hands out marriage licenses to same-sex couples (if not sooner), the pressure for a U.S. Constitutional Amendment (declaring "marriage = m/f" and *outlawing* not only same-sex marriage, but possibly civil unions as well) will SOAR (then there's the upcoming election next year). That the amendment will get a majority of votes in Congress is almost a given, I'm afraid. Here's where the rubber hits the road: a Constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 vote of *both* the House and the Senate. It will be critical to hang onto a 1/3 opposition in one or both. 34 Senators to block it, and the amendment is toast.*



We really don't want that amendment to go to the state legislatures: it's a two-thirds vote there as well, but Mississippi (!) will count for as much as California. We've got to stop it in Congress. The best chance is probably in the Senate: get your senators on board to block this amendment NOW!



HRC (the Human Rights Campaign) among other places can hook you up w/ how to contact your senators (and house reps as well).



www.hrc.org/



GG Overturn DOMA, block the amendment, and fight it out in the state courts: then you too can get married (and enjoy the privileges)! Out



*NB: there's also the ugly possibility of state constitutional conventions (to go around Congress), but we won't go there for now.

[WebWarlock]

Ok xita. I had to look that up.



Boston Marriage.



Most of you probably know this one already...



Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

The Other Side,
home of Liber Mysterium: The Netbook of Witches and Warlocks. Available Now!

"I don't want to believe. I want to know." - Carl Sagan

[kyraroc]

One of the nicest things about the Massachusetts ruling is that the logic and legality are *tight*. It's a very hard ruling to assail from a legal perspective. The US Supreme Court anti-sodomy ruling, in contrast, while I think it was a great decision, is unfortunately a rather poorly-written one, since the Justices were at pains not to declare choice of consenting sexual partner a fundamental right, as that opens up a can of worms that no one wants to see opened except, well, people like just about everyone here. As a result of that, the wording is a bit of a muddle at times, which means it's somewhat harder to use as legal precedent.



The Massachusetts decision, on the other hand, neatly does an end-run around the fundamental right issue by declaring that there's no rational basis whatsoever for banning gay marriage - which means it doesn't matter if it's a right or not because the state has no business making a law with no rational basis ever. Whether it's a right is irrelevant. Not only that, but the decision neatly and clearly dispatches all the arguments attempting to assign a rational basis to it; the section skewering the notion that marriage is for procreation is particularly well-organized.



The dissenting opinions were left spinning, arguing against points that had never been raised (because they didn't need to be) and at one point actually trying to prove that a law was only discriminatory if it was *intended* to be discriminatory, no matter what its effects were.



However, if you pare down the opinion and the dissent to their basics, it becomes a rather telling debate about the purpose of marriage. To the majority, the purpose of marriage is to *provide* a set of legal protections for people who wished to form a family with each other. To the dissenters, the purpose of marriage is to *promote* one form of family unit over all others. I suspect that's a debate that, with less clarity and focus, is going to be repeated a lot in the next few years.



One interesting thing about the dissenting opinions is that they were very respectful and not overtly homophobic at all; rather than arguing that homosexual family units were de facto bad, but that they were relatively untested, and therefore should not (yet) be afforded that same kind of promotion as heterosexual ones, although they might, in time, through the legislature. While I think that's a bad argument (once again dependent on the IMO mistaken notion that marriage is for promotion rather than protection), it's not a competely insane one, and a marked contrast to, say, Scalia's sneeringly condescending dissent in Lawrence v. Texas. To me, it's another indication of the sea-change in public opinion going on in this country. I can't imagine this having happened in my youth.



As to whether the political backlash is going to be two steps back for one step forward . . . I don't think it's easy to predict what will happen in a year. And if we go down, at least we'll go down swingin'.



One note of warning to those putting their trust in the full faith and credit clause - in full, it reads:



"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."



That second sentence leaves a potential out for horrors like DOMA. Something like that passing the Supreme Court for that reason would be a radical bit of judicial activism, but we've all seen that the so-called "strict constitutionalists" on the court are perfectly willing to do that if it suits their purposes. I have a hard time believing such a thing would happen with the current make-up of the Supreme Court, but a number of justices are likely to retire soon and its critically important that someone is elected to office who won't replace them with right-wing shills, or all bets are off, even if the Amendment of Evil doesn't go through.



Everyone please vote.



--- kyraroc

Lost in Ecstacy

Edited by: kyraroc at: 11/19/03 10:00 am

[amazonchyck]

Hi there. Technically, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, every other state would have to recognize any gay marriages that were performed in Massachusetts (civil unions do NOT have to be recognized in every other state, but marriages do). In order to undo that, either Congress would have to amend the constitution or the Supreme Court would have to say that marriage is not subject to the Full Faith and Credit Clause - both of which would be rather difficult to accomplish.



Bush, whether he wants to make it a wedge issue or not, can't really do diddly about it - despite the fact that he gets the executive branch to routinely violate the Constitution in criminal matters (i.e. the Patriot Act), he can't alter the constitution without Congress' help and the Supreme Court's passivity. This is a HUGE problem for the federal government now (and I'm loving every minute of it) because once you get ONE law in the U.S. that says gays can marry or else its denial of equal protection, the Full Faith and Credit Clause comes in and the federal government has some tricky constitutional work to do in order to get around it - they're going to have to get 2/3rds of the states to say they're bigots at a constitutional convention.



Of course, this all hinges on what the Massachusetts legislature decides to do with this decision. I have no doubt that they are working on fancy footwork to get out of the corner the Massachusetts Supreme Court backed them in to, but regardless, this HAS been a shot heard round the world that can't be undone.



amazonchyck

[amazonchyck]

Just a quick note to everyone - as governments across the nation scramble to figure out a way to block gay marriages, I encourage each of you to email, write, or call your representatives and senators (both at the federal and state levels) and inform them how you feel on the subject. I especially encourage this of you if you live in Massachusetts.



I have included a letter that I wrote and will be sending to my Congress-persons and also to President Bush because I know lots of people are too busy to take time out of their day to do so. I would encourage everyone to write their own personal letter, because people in Congress tend to give personal letters more weight, but feel free to use, abuse, and re-write my letter if you so desire. It ain't much, but maybe it'll make one elected official stop and think.



amazonchyck



Dear [Elected Official]:



Yesterday, the Massachusetts Supreme Court made a monumental decision - it held that it was unconstitutional to prevent same-sex couples from marrying because to do so would create “second-class citizens.” In the wake of this decision, political officials such as President George W. Bush, Representative Tom DeLay, and Governor Mitt Romney have decried that decision, claiming that marriage is a sacred institution that is reserved solely for one man and one woman. Both Mr. DeLay and Mr. Romney have even suggested that there should be a constitutional amendment, both at the state and the federal level, prohibiting marriage between same-sex couples. I write this letter to you today in hopes of convincing you how much of an abomination such an amendment would be in the eyes of equality and justice.



Marriage, in all its various incarnations, has rarely been a “sacred” institution. Marriage has historically been used to consolidate power between families (Henry VIII marrying Catherine of Aragon and arranged marriages), to secure financial gain (the dowry system), and to produce strong offspring (Spartan marriage). Marriage has even historically been used to subjugate women - women used to be considered a form or property that was passed between father to husband, hence the tradition of giving the bride away at weddings. In short, marriage has symbolized a variety of ideals throughout time, not all of which can be considered “sacred.”



In modern-day America, marriage has come to symbolize the union of two people who love each other. That is a beautiful sentiment, but up until the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s decision, it has been a sentiment rife with prejudice. Numerous states throughout this union, in passing constitutional amendments banning marriages between people of the same-sex, and the federal government, in passing the Defense of Marriage Act, have let it be known the government only sanctions love between heterosexual couples. That is, most of the governments in America have let it be known that same-sex couples are somehow “wrong,” “deficient,” and “second-class.” Even Vermont, who legalized civil unions, is guilty of this for civil unions smack of “separate, but equal” status. As the Supreme Court recognized in Brown v. Board of Education, separate is inherently unequal.



Whatever the religious thought on same-sex couples may be, it is government’s duty to protect the equality of EVERY citizen in America, be they gay, lesbian, bisexual, white, black, female, male, or any combination thereof. There was a time when this country read the Declaration of Independence’s famous quotation, “All men are created equal” literally - only white men were given the benefits of government. Since that time, this country has recognized that government should be both gender-blind and color-blind. Now is the time for government to realize that it must also be sexuality-blind. It may be for God to judge, but it is for you, as an elected official, to foster equality between all citizens, regardless of your personal viewpoint towards their decisions. Your duty as a public officer demands no less. We are all equal in the eyes of justice.



Sincerely,



[Your Name Here]

[amazonchyck]

You can find all your local and federal representatives by inputting your zip code here:



www.vote-smart.org







amazonchyck

[xita]

As I was thinking about this last night, the recent court decisions are making it clear, our constitution demands that gay marriages be allowed. Current policies are violating our constitution. Everyone knows it, including our politicians who are hard at work trying to ammend the constitution to exclude someone's rights. In a few years we may be the only western country without gay marriages. It's not something they can stop.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

[Ben Varkentine]

Just a cautionary reminder of the context of the country.

Quote:

---

By Will Lester







Nov. 18, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- Younger adults are evenly split over gay marriages, but older Americans are opposed by a 4-1 margin, according to a poll examining attitudes about homosexuality.



The poll, released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, found that opposition to gay marriage increased the older people became.





While younger people in general were more apt to approve of gay marriage -- those between ages 20 and 30 were about evenly split on favoring or opposing -- the poll found that among those in their 60s and 70s, opponents outnumbered supporters by more than four to one.



Opposition to gay marriage has grown since midsummer, with 32 percent favoring it and 59 percent opposing it. In July, 53 percent said they opposed gay marriage, and 38 percent approved.



Political attitudes sharply affected beliefs about gay marriage. Four in five of those who say they would vote to re-elect President Bush oppose gay marriage, while those who prefer that a Democrat win the presidency are evenly split on the question.



Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state constitution gives same-sex couples the right to marry but stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to couples who challenged a ban on gay marriage. The Supreme Judicial Court's 4-3 ruling ordered the state Legislature to come up with a solution within 180 days.



The Pew poll showed the public to be evenly divided on whether gays and lesbians can alter their sexual orientation, with white Evangelicals are the most likely to think homosexuals can become heterosexual, the poll said.



"Evangelicals are far more likely to say homosexuals can change, Catholics and mainline Protestants fall in the middle and more secular people are most likely to say they cannot change," said Scott Keeter, a pollster with the center.



The survey reinforced the finding that religious attitudes sharply affect feelings on gays and homosexual behavior. Those with a high level of religious commitment oppose gay marriage by 80 percent to 12 percent.



Americans with college degrees were closely divided on the question of gay marriage, with 49 percent opposed and 44 percent in favor of allowing that option.



The survey found the public has moved toward widespread opposition to discrimination generally against homosexuals, despite the opposition to gay marriage.



Most Americans, 55 percent, say they feel that homosexuality is a sin, while 33 percent disagree. Nine in 10 highly committed white Evangelicals and nearly three-quarters of black Protestants say homosexual behavior is sinful.



The poll of 1,515 adults was taken Oct. 15-19 by the Pew Research Center on behalf of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. The survey has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

---

Ben



"We are all one. And if we do not know, we will learn it the hard way."

-- Bayard Rustin, organizer of the 1963 March on Washington

[Gatito Grande]

When I said that there would be fights about (Mass. same-sex marriage) in every state (their courts), I should have clarified:



DOMA makes it possible for every state to contest another state's same-sex marriage. Right now, IIRC, 38 states have passed their own versions of DOMA: that they will block a Mass. s-s marriage is given (it's law). For the other eleven states, it's possible that they would let the marriage stand (Full Faith and Credit doing its thing, and ignoring the federal DOMA's option) . . . but I wouldn't bet on it (maybe Vermont might be a decent bet to let a marriage stand). I expect that a few more states will pass DOMA's if Mass. s-s marriage goes through (others, like my State of Michigan, are proposing turning their DOMA into a state constitutional amendment, just like their yahoo conservative kin in Congress).



I can't overemphasize the necessity of blocking a U.S. Constitutional Amendment. Support for same-sex marriage will increase over the years: we know that. Just like the Pew Survey shows, the younger you are, the more likely you are to support it. However, if an amendment should be passed, all the legal percentages switch: instead of needing 1/3 of each branch of Congress to block it, we would need *2/3* of each to repeal it (and again, ditto 2/3 of the states to repeal it). That's an *enormous* mountain to climb: the Christian Right (and other misguided and/or bigoted people) could keep that amendment on the books, for decades (you want an analogy? Think of "Jim Crow" segregation laws: passed in the 1880-90s, and not repealed until the 1950-60s). If any of you want to marry your partners (or potential partners) before your Golden anniversaries, you'll do all you can to block this abominable amendment.



GG Talk (inc. maybe in person?) to your Congresspersons (esp. Senators) *early and often*! Out



STOP THE PRESSES! Yours truly erred (I know, don't let the shock overwhelm you ). An amendment requires the support of 3/4 of the state legislatures. I don't think this really helps us, though: Mississippi and Alabama (no offense to Southern Kittens) still count for as much as California and New York (and there's *more than 3/4* of the states w/ DOMA's now). There's also still the reciprocal problem in order to repeal an amendment (we would need 3/4 of the state legislatures).



ETA: DCA, I'm so sorry---I honestly didn't see your post (correcting me on the state legislatures needed to ratify an amendment) when I corrected mine (it was just doubt nagging at me, till I found a U.S. Constitution lying around my apartment to check!)

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 11/19/03 10:48 pm

[DaddyCatALSO]

Gatito Grande; Ratifying an AMendment requires three-fourths of the states to agree; don't know if this constitutes good or bad news in this case, I'm too math-phobic to cipher that out.



amazonchyck; Technically and by definition, all acts of Congress are reagrded as "the Congress...may taker action to enforce this Constitution through appropriate legislation" which means that Federal law defines the applicability of the Constitutions provisions. Which means that DOMA places same-gender marriage outside the "full faith and credit" clause. So until (obviously not "unless" now) DOMA is challenged in Federal court, that *is* the law under which the other states and the territories are operating. And the Federal government when it comes to things like next-of-kin for Social security and Federal pensions etc.

It's a policy in Federal courts that laws cannot be challenged hypothetically but only as appeals of an actual case decided under them. So since the Hawaii Su[preme Court Decision which sparked DOMA was reversed by the Hawaiian LEgislature before any cases were generated, this is sparking soemthing new.

[amazonchyck]

Erm. Well...it depends on your perspective, I suppose. DOMA is a facially unconstitutional - it violates both the Equal Protection Clause and the Priviliges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment and if the federal Congress really thought that DOMA could stand up against a challenge like Massachusetts is presenting, they wouldn't be scrambling like hell to get a constitutional amendment blocking gay marriage. You are right, DOMA has not been challenged yet because no state has ruled that gay marriage is legal. (Civil Unions are...well..."separate but equal" - ick). If Massachusetts become the first, DOMA will fall or else ALL marriages will have to be recognized on a state-by-state basis. Problem is that the Supreme Court will probably have to be the one to strike down DOMA, and while the current court could probably get a 5-4 vote on that, Bush's judicial appointments are frighteningly conservative.

[DaddyCatALSO]

amazonchyck; good use of a term which I love throwing about but seldom see from anyone else. The closest comparison of "facially unconstitutional" would probably be the interracial marriages laws many Southern and Western states used to have on the books. They were still on the books until being thrown out by the Loving v. Virginia case. DOMA is essentially the same thing.



It's like I've said here about the PAtriot Act; in the final sense I (despite all the complaining I do) generally trust the Federal court system as a whole and feel that this issue is going to end up where it belongs, in the courts.