Mass. High Court Rules for Gay Marriage!

[dissention]

Mass. High Court Rules for Gay Marriage
49 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - The Massachusetts high court ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples — rather than civil unions — are constitutional, clearing the way for the nation's first same-sex marriages in the state as early as May.


"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion requested by the state Senate.


After seven gay couples sued in 2001, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change state laws to make it happen.


But the vague wording of the ruling left lawmakers — and advocates on both sides — uncertain if Vermont-style civil unions would satisfy the court's decision.


The Massachusetts court said any civil unions bill that falls short of marriage would establish an "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."


The state Senate asked for more guidance from the court, whose advisory opinion was made public Wednesday morning when it was read into the Senate record.


The much-anticipated opinion sets the stage for next Wednesday's constitutional convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Without the opinion, Senate President Robert Travaglini had said the vote would be delayed.


The soonest a constitutional amendment could end up on the ballot would be 2006, meaning that until then the high court's decision will be Massachusetts law no matter what is decided at the constitutional convention.


"We've heard from the court, but not from the people," Gov. Mitt Romney said in a statement. "The people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage."


Travaglini said he wanted time to talk with fellow senators before deciding what to do next.


"I want to have everyone stay in an objective and calm state as we plan and define what's the appropriate way to proceed," Travaglini said.


Conservative leaders said they were not surprised by the advisory opinion, and vowed to redouble their efforts to pass the constitutional amendment.


Mary Bonauto, an attorney who represented the seven couples who filed the lawsuit, said she anticipated a fierce battle, saying that "no matter what you think about the court's decision, it's always wrong to change the constitution to write discrimination into it."


When it was issued in November, the 4-3 ruling set off a firestorm of protest across the country among politicians, religious leaders and others opposed to providing landmark rights for gay couples to marry.


President Bush (news - web sites) immediately denounced the decision and vowed to pursue legislation to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Church leaders in the heavily Roman Catholic state also pressed their parishioners to oppose efforts to allow gays to marry.


And legislators were prepared to vote on a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would seek to make the court's ruling moot by defining as marriage as a union between one man and one woman — thus expressly making same-sex marriages illegal in Massachusetts.


What the case represented, both sides agree, was a significant new milestone in a year that has seen broad new recognitions of gay rights in America, Canada and abroad, including a June U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) decision striking a Texas ban on gay sex.


Legal experts, however, said that the long-awaited decision, while clearly stating that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage, gave ambiguous instructions to the state Legislature.

Lawmakers remained uncertain if civil unions went far enough to live up to the court's ruling — or if actual marriages were required.

When a similar decision was issued in Vermont in 1999, the court told the Legislature that it could allow gay couples to marry or create a parallel institution that conveys all the state rights and benefits of marriage. The Legislature chose the second route, leading to the approval of civil unions in that state.

The Massachusetts decision made no mention of an alternative solution, but instead pointed to a recent decision in Ontario, Canada, that changed the common law definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and led to the issuance of marriage licenses there.

The state "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples," the court wrote. "Barred access to the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions."

The Massachusetts case began in 2001, when the seven gay couples went to their city and town halls to obtain marriage licenses. All were denied, leading them to sue the state Department of Public Health (news - web sites), which administers the state's marriage laws.

A Suffolk Superior Court judge threw out the case in 2002, ruling that nothing in state law gives gay couples the right to marry. The couples immediately appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which heard arguments in March.

The plaintiffs argued that barring them from marrying a partner of the same sex denied them access to an intrinsic human experience and violated basic constitutional rights.

Over the past decade, Massachusetts' high court has expanded the legal parameters of family, ruling that same-sex couples can adopt children and devising child visitation right for a former partner of a lesbian.

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country with at 1.3 percent of the total number of coupled households, according to the 2000 census. In California, 1.4 percent of the coupled households are occupied by same-sex partners. Vermont and New York also registered at 1.3 percent, while in Washington, D.C., the rate is 5.1 percent


GOOD NEWS INDEED!

[strandinthewind]

The plot thickens. The next two months will certainly be interesting!!!!!

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
The plot thickens. The next two months will certainly be interesting!!!!!

It will become law, mark my words. It's MA, after all.

[CarneVaca]

I'll raise my glass to that. Beautiful decision.

Let there be love... and marriage.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
It will become law, mark my words. It's MA, after all.

Well, the MA Sup. Ct. (MASCT) has left the legislature no choice. The Legislature will have to either:

1. Form a "civil unions" law that mirrors in every way the rights obtained in that state via a marriage, or

2. Recognize gay marriage as the same as heterosexual marriage.

Moreover, the way I read it the MA Legislature can do nothing about unless they amend the MA Const., which they cannot do until 2006. So, what about all of the day couples that married between say May 2004 and May 2006? Suddenly, their marriage is no good anymore. Talk about your ex post facto laws there.

In the end, I think they will chose option 1 because it is the course of least resistance (which is saying alot here ).
I think that is a shame because like the Justice said "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal."

[dissention]

The thing that I don't understand is how the conservatives can say that the majority of MA residents oppose gay marriages. Every single person that I've spoken to about gay marriage in the past six months has said that they think it should be made legal. It makes you wonder if Repugs even realize that it's MA, the most liberal state!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
The thing that I don't understand is how the conservatives can say that the majority of MA residents oppose gay marriages. Every single person that I've spoken to about gay marriage in the past six months has said that they think it should be made legal. It makes you wonder if Repugs even realize that it's MA, the most liberal state!

What do the credible polls in MA say? A lot of the informal CNN polls are split fairly statistically even.

[strandinthewind]

Here is a CNN article with a poll.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/sa...rriage.ruling/

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
What do the credible polls in MA say? A lot of the informal CNN polls are split fairly statistically even.

The last poll I saw said 45% opposed it and 54% approved, well beyond the margin of error. But I think that it is split evenly.

[strandinthewind]

Interestingly, if the legislature can do nothing to trump the MASCT decision until Nov. 2006, Barney Frank's quote in that CNN article that could ring true. He said ""My prediction is that when we in Massachusetts vote on this -- and we almost certainly will in 2006 -- the reality will have overtaken the fears."

So many people do not realize that if it was not for the courts and judicial activism, African-Americans would not have had the right to vote, women would not have the right to vote, etc. People need to realize the purpose of a constitution is to protect a minority group from the wrath of the majority and the far religious right.

[strandinthewind]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110445,00.html

the decision - well worth reading!

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Here is a CNN article with a poll.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/sa...rriage.ruling/

As if we need anymore proof that Gov. Mitt "Mutt" Romney is a prick. I can't wait to vote that bastard out.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by dissention
As if we need anymore proof that Gov. Mitt "Mutt" Romney is a prick. I can't wait to vote that bastard out.

Ole Mitt's kind of cute in my opinion.

[dissention]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
Ole Mitt's kind of cute in my opinion.

He looks like polished trailer trash. And runs the state like Bush on speed.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by dissention


He looks like polished trailer trash. And runs the state like Bush on speed.

Are you sure you don't mean Bush on coke?