Delta777-XXX From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1017 posts, RR: 8 Posted (10 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 2473 times:
(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law, and gave the state Legislature 180 days to find a solution, The Associated Press reported.
In the United States, Vermont is the only state to allow same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Vermont calls them civil unions, rather than marriages.
California's State Assembly has passed a domestic partnership law to provide similar benefits, but it stops short of allowing gays to marry.
In its ruling, the Massachusetts court said the state "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."
Arguments in the case were heard March 4. Under its internal guidelines, the court usually tries to issue decisions within 130 days of hearing such arguments, but the decision went past the anticipated summer deadline.
The case was filed by seven same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses and has attracted national attention, with advocates on both sides predicting that the Massachusetts court could become the first in the nation to legalize gay marriage.
"We're talking about people who don't have equality under the law and should have it, because all citizens in this state are born free and equal," Mary Bonauto, an attorney for the plaintiffs who also works for the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said last summer.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional, and last June 10, an appeals court in the Canadian province of Ontario struck down a ban on same-sex marriage.
LH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 54
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 2438 times:
I was wondering when this case was going to come down. Living in Boston I'm constantly hearing about it so it's good to have some resolution even if the whole legalization of marriage is still in the air.
« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Csavel From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1358 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 15 hours ago) and read 2381 times:
As long as the tomato consents and is an adult tomato, go for it. In an ideal world, you, or any other consenting adult of sound mind, wouldn't have to ask the nanny government for permission to marry. Which is why conservatives should be as pro gay-marriage as liberals, IMHO. It's kicking mommy government out of people's lives.
I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 2355 times:
If the Mass. Legislature chooses to do so, they can override this decision by amending the state constitution. When Hawaii's activist court tried to pull the same garbage, the people forced a referendum and changed the state's constitution.
Sooner or later the public is going to force Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 women. It is already in the House and every poll shows between 65% and 75% support for it throughout the country.
People don't seem to realize that this has nothing to do with equal rights but it about a miniscule minority (1%-2% of the population) trying to force its views and ideologies upon the majority.
Now homosexuals will go into churches that do not accept such behavior and demand that the church "marry" them. When the church refuses, they'll be sued for "discrimination" and "hate crimes".
Mark my words, next will come the demand for "marriage" between multiple partners, then family members, and it wouldn't be a far reach for to even consider "marriage" between people and animals. I mean, after all, why not? They're a "minority" too. Also, don't forget the repeal of any law governing the age of consent. That's next on the agenda and is already being pushed thanks to the E.U. Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.
An-225 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 3950 posts, RR: 42
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 2348 times:
B757300 - You should stop spreading your hate and homophobic bullshit around. If you want to marry a woman - fine with me. If you want to marry a man - I have no problems either. WHY can't you have the same view? Who cares about 85% majority? It all comes down to what's a right thing to do.
Think back to slavery. I am sure that it was supported by 75 to 85% of the slave owners back then too. There you have it. You want to live in a country that is ruled by religion and prejudice - go to Iran. They'll like you there.
Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
SSTjumbo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 2346 times:
From a religious standpoint I remain against any marriage not male-female, but from a legal standpoint I am glad they finally legalized gay marriages. Afterall, I may not agree with it, but it's not my job to decide for other people what's right for them. Just more of that theology cr@p .
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 12 hours ago) and read 2335 times:
>>Mark my words, next will come the demand for "marriage" between multiple partners, then family members, and it wouldn't be a far reach for to even consider "marriage" between people and animals. I mean, after all, why not? They're a "minority" too. Also, don't forget the repeal of any law governing the age of consent. That's next on the agenda and is already being pushed thanks to the E.U. Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas.<<
I will mark your words as completely illogical, as is your post and stance on this issue.
We now have at least 3 (that I can remember) state supreme courts that have ruled that their state's constitution does not ban the recognition of a marriage contract between two consenting non-related adults of the same sex. And for that conclusion, they are labeled "activist"???? So, I guess when any supreme judicial body in the U.S. is presented this issue, researches their constitution, and concludes that their state constitution as written does not discriminate based on the sex of the parties to a marriage contract, they are automatically "activist", rather than the possibility that they may actually know a thing or two about the supreme law of their state and it may indeed be a fact that their state constitution does not prevent same-sex marriages.
A stance that says allowing same-sex marriages means that multiple-partner marriages or incestuous marriages must be allowed is based out of irrational fear rather than logic .
The reality and bottom line is there is absolutely no rational reason why two consenting adults of the same sex should not be allowed the same legal rights as two consenting adults of the opposite sex who enter into a marriage contract. In fact, what other legal contract dictates that only people of the opposite sex can enter into it?? If we're going to extend logic here based on the argument that only 2 people of the opposite sex can enter a marriage contract, then perhaps we should say that only 2 people of the opposite race can enter into said contract... or that only 2 people of the opposite sex can enter into a leasing contract, etc.
Marriage in the legal sense is a contract between two people. That is all this issue is about... equal treatment under the law. The general public is all flipped out over semantics here, and do not understand that the legal framework of marriage is different than being married in the eyes of a religious organization... and if gays try to be married in a church, that is an issue between them and the church, and regardless of your "words" B757300, there would be no legal standing there should a same-sex couple want to sue a church. Can't happen under the U.S. constitution. But under our constitution as written, same-sex couples should be treated equally in the eyes of the law, regardless of what proportion of the population they represent. Injustice to one person is injustice to everyone.
And finally, whether you want to believe it or not, if I were married to my partner, it would have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON YOUR LIFE WHATSOEVER. And that's what really angers me about all this.... the tyranny of the majority. Those that enjoy the legal rights associated with a marriage contract have the ability to deny those rights to a group of people who should be allowed to also enter into such a contract.. and yet they call themselves "Americans". I intellectually know that people fear what they don't understand, but sometimes the irrationality of it is really difficult to take.
Mark MY words though.... just as the struggle for civil rights took decades, and racial minorities still struggle with inequality today, so too will this fight continue.
Seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11083 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 12 hours ago) and read 2330 times:
If I remember my Old Testament, didn't Moses, Noah, and many of the Christian believers have multiple wives? So, the question stands: How do you make the leap from a consentual partnership between two people to a consentual partnership between multiple people if one had been supported by yor religion at one point? If you want to support a few Old Testament standards, why not support them all?
More to the point, why can the government allow gays to get the same piece of papaer straits can? That has nothing to do with the church. That has only to do with government. Also, the government can nip the other stuff in the bud right now by passing a law saying a partnership like this is only between two people and only within our own spiecies.
But, anyway, people keep forgetting the whole inscest/animal/polygamy points will never gain wide spread support in this country. Mainly because those things have NOTHING TO DO WITH LOVE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE!!!!!!
Gc From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2003, 356 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 2310 times:
"If I remember my Old Testament, didn't Moses, Noah, and many of the Christian believers have multiple wives?"
I think you'll find that Christians didn't happen until the first century AD in Antioch, these Old Testament types were Jews (as was Jesus and the apostles).
Aside from that I don't want this to turn into a "Christians are Homophobic" argument because a lot of us aren't even if we don't agree that same sex marriage should have the same status as heterosexual union (which is the spiritual definition of marriage). It doesn't come down to hating people, discrimination or whatever, the bible says that when we have sex it forms a spiritual union (we become one flesh) so common sense dictates be careful who you join with . As Christians (and Jews & Muslims) we believe that God's design was that man and woman are two parts that are made into one union and anything else is a lesser thing. We are entitled to hold that belief without being screamed at as homophobic, bigoted or, God forbid, conservative! I, as a Christian,don't think I'm any better than anyone, gay, straight, Martian, armadillo, whatever. And I deplore any kind of hatred towards the gay community. I just have my views and I hold them strongly, they make a lot of sense to me. But I am concerned that in the pursuit of justice for gay people (which is of course their right), Christians like me are being persecuted for holding a view which should be as valid as anyone elses but isn't very fashionable.
I know that the church should be there more for the gay community, and certainly in my church , anyone is welcome, but we can't be compromised on what we believe God wants for mankind. So, if you want tolerance, we'd like some too. And if you want us to be there for you, we need to learn how, on both sides!
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 2304 times:
"But I am concerned that in the pursuit of justice for gay people (which is of course their right), Christians like me are being persecuted for holding a view which should be as valid as anyone elses but isn't very fashionable."
You're being "persecuted??????"
Pray tell... how?
Your views are quite valid. In the United States, a formal separation of Church and State would not require any religious institution to formally recognize a civil marriage.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 2295 times:
Mark my words, next will come the demand for "marriage" between multiple partners, then family members, and it wouldn't be a far reach for to even consider "marriage" between people and animals. I mean, after all, why not? They're a "minority" too.
As I expressed in post #6, I have to agree.
a miniscule minority (1%-2% of the population
Sorry bub, but unless you're secretly using Cerebro down at the Xavier School.... I'm gonna have to call your bluff: it is not possible to accurately determine (i.e., not postulate!) the number of homosexuals in the nationwide populace.
You say 1-2%, Kinsey Institute says 9-11%, CDC says 8%... yet none of you know the real answer anyways.
Gc From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2003, 356 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 10 hours ago) and read 2281 times:
"You're being "persecuted??????"
Do you know how it feels to be shouted down and called a bigot when you are not? The easy viewpoint in any conversation with a cross section of people such as this forum is to go with the majority, if you don't you get labelled.
Aside from that we have the situation, such as in the US where the Christian heritage is stripped away without much of a fight and here in the UK the Red Cross has banned Christian imagery at Christmas, in case other faiths are offended. (The head of the UK Muslims, said that he too thought this was ridiculous)
I'm getting off the topic, but basically, if we disagree with the pro-gay point of view we get jumped on before we get a chance to have a reasonable discussion about it.
"Your views are quite valid. In the United States, a formal separation of Church and State would not require any religious institution to formally recognize a civil marriage. "
I think the problem here is the use of the term marriage (because of the definition I said earlier), to me it's like saying Boeing A330 or Airbus 747, it's forcing a different definition of a term (which in the case of marriage fundamentally effects society) to suit a social change in attitudes.
LHMark From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 49
Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 months 10 hours ago) and read 2274 times:
Maybe it's time we re-evaluated the state of marriage. After all, how viable an institution is matrimony if it needs a special "Defense of Marriage Act" to protect it?
So gays and lesbians get married. More power to them. If you're deeply devout and it offends your relgion, at least you can still be smug in the knowledge that they'll go to hell.
Standing against gay marriage as a principle (we're not going to let this small minority dictate to us, the majority), is petulant and inflammatory. Somehow, I doubt committed gay partners are going to start demanding marriage between multiple partners and family members.
I can understand that many traditionally-minded people are frightened by the way gays approach sex and love- I think the wildly promiscuous gay pride parades do much to foster within middle America the image of gays as rabid sexual demons and therefore hamper any possible meeting of the minds. However, two people who want to commit their lives to each other deserve the dignity of societal sanction.
"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
Jaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 4 months 8 hours ago) and read 2255 times:
"I'm getting off the topic, but basically, if we disagree with the pro-gay point of view we get jumped on before we get a chance to have a reasonable discussion about it."
Well, I just witnessed six separate news programs where two opposing points of view were presented and no one was jumped on.
I think that the problem is that the public face of opponents of gay marriage is often synonymous with the public face of far right opponents of all gay rights. Those who make the loudest public pronouncements against gay marriage are often those who have made a career out of gay bashing. Thus, the voices of people who are not to the extreme right on the ideological spectrum is often never heard.
"it's forcing a different definition of a term (which in the case of marriage fundamentally effects society) to suit a social change in attitudes."
Well, in those fascinating biblical days of yore, men married numerous women at the same time and wives were essentially property. But social attitudes changed, like they always have. Marriage as we see it today is a relatively new concept in human history that has evolved over time.
"Mark my words, next will come the demand for "marriage" between multiple partners, then family members, and it wouldn't be a far reach for to even consider "marriage" between people and animals. I mean, after all, why not? They're a "minority" too."
Tut tut. Marriage, like many social institutions is subject to public policy, human rights arguments, constitutional arguments. Animals are not a cognizable human "minority" subject to rights and privileges. Civil and social institutions were not created for cattle. They were created for complex human civilizations. Arguments like yours do not pass the laugh test. Sorry. Also, there is a very strong scientific argument against marriage between family members. Such arguments used to be based in evidentiary procreative mishaps that resulted from such arrangements. However, today's scientists have human genetics and psychotherapy to back them up as well. Furthermore, the child-parent relationship is not one based on equality that lends itself to the institution of modern marriage.
The classic argument against equating gay marriage with multiple partner or family member marriage is that as a heterosexual, the institution of marriage is not denied to you as it is to homosexuals. Any hypothesized mulitple partner or family member marriages would be denied equally to both gay and straight people and so it is a moot point. I find it a bit strange when folks on both sides of the divide talk about "families" as being the issue. The issue here is the right of the individual; not the right of traditional versus alternative families.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16213 posts, RR: 57
Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 months 6 hours ago) and read 2237 times:
As a straight person, I'm fully in support of gay marriage. I fail to see why any straights are threatened by it.
Ironically, allowing gay marriages will add more stability and conservatism to gay couples since it will draw them to the social mainstream.....and yet it is the opposition to gay marriages that will only serve to radicalize alot of otherwise very conservative gays. Conservatives will only bolster their numbers by welcoming gay marriage.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 4 months 6 hours ago) and read 2217 times:
Sooner or later the public is going to force Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 women.
What a waste of time, money and resources. The amendment process, at least at the beginning, was a way for people to protct themselves from government. Now, we have a party-the GOP-that ostensibly like to have government out of people's lives, proposing amendments to 1. "Protect" the flag from being burned as a legit means of protest; 2. "Protect" the word God in the Pledge, and 3. "Protect" marriage from gays.
So much for unobstrusive government. B75300, why do you care if gays want to get married? Seriously? Do they not also have the right to be happy? Or is that only reserved for straights?
And maybe conservatives should be more alarmed at the high divorce rate among traditional couples; the rate of abuse, sexual and physical. Maybe THAT would do more to protect the sanctity of marriage than some paranoid quest aginst homosexuals.
: Its amusing to see Pete Labarbera out there spewing the "results" of his so-called research about homosexual promiscuity. The man is a sad freak who u
: If I had been more awake in my previous post, I would have also added this: A couple can visit an attorney to have a paper drawn up stating that in th
: Well, i find that really disappointing. I am gay, so I think I have a right to express my point of view on this. I do not see what sex has to do with
: I think same sex marriage is just a small step compared to the logical next step which is the parental issue : Should homosexual couples be able to ad
: B757300... how long have you been with your girlfriend/partner/wife/whatever? I've been with my partner for 6.5 years. Our friends Rob and Mark have b
: doesnt the usa have that very vague "pursuit of happyness" in their constitution? if so isnt the love between consenting same sex couples also a pursu
: B757300, You're really funny when you're talking out of your homophobic ass, you know that? Mark my words, next will come the demand for "marriage" be
: Yeah ! May all gay people come to Belgium and have a big wedding party !
: Ive been with my partner for 20months, not very long, but then again ive just turned 19. If B757300 made a racist comment, then he would proably be th
: I have been with my partner for three years and have signed for an additional 37 !
: "And maybe conservatives should be more alarmed at the high divorce rate among traditional couples; the rate of abuse, sexual and physical. Maybe THAT
: A lot of smart comments her, so not much to add, but I am curious as to why social conservatives love the government so much when it comes to issues l
: Marrige should be between a man and a woman.
: Says who funflyer? Marriage should be based on love. Im not saying anything about children involved, the main reason the religions are against it is b
: America this is the only thing that keeps you from the middle ages!!! This is the only process, people need to be free, right Bush??? For me descrimin
: I do agree, bush goes on about the 'land of the free', 'free world', 'free nations' and on and on and on and on and on with words to that affect. If p
: Windshear... I am glad you confirmed what I have been thinking: Denmark also allows same-sex marriage. In fact, I always thought it was the first coun