Massachusetts court rules against gay marriage ban

[Marc]

Massachusetts court rules against gay marriage ban (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/index.html)

In its ruling, the Massachusetts court said the state "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."

Gee, this is realy going to PO conservatives. :D

[volant]

Next we will be letting them vote, and own land.

[Tmy]

So they ruled against a ban on gay unions. But they do not have the authority to create a marraige law right? That would be up to the state legistlator. I think thats ok. They should just create some civil union thing. That way you can wrap up legal issues for gay couples and the fundies can keep the marriage thing.

[Tony]

I tend to dislike judicial activism, but I think this case may be an exception. The court didn’t rule in favor of gay marriage, it gave the legislature some time to come up with a solution. I think it’s a good compromise; hopefully the legislature will do the right thing.

[JamesM]

Lest we forget the tremendous power of The Force (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23274):
Massachuesetts is going to legalize homosexual marriages (unions, whatever you want to call them) today, the 12th of July 2003. Using The Force, I anticipate the announcement to occur around 12 noon or so.

JK

P.S. This is not a psychic prediction. Psychics have nothing on The Force.
Better late than never, eh?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by JamesM
Lest we forget the tremendous power of The Force (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23274):

Better late than never, eh?

But the 12 of July is 12/07. 12 + 07 = 19.

And it's the 19th of November in Australia.

So he was right!

[Supercharts]

"But the issue may find a hostile audience in the Massachusetts Legislature, which has been considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal."

"And Republican Gov. Mitt Romney criticizing the ruling, saying: "Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that makes that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman." "

op.cit.

If Finneran and the Governor are not supporting this then the Mass. State Constitution will be changed within 180 days. Then there's Archbishop Sean O'Malley...

[Attrayant]

Chief Justice Marshall:

"For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial and social benefits. In return, it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations."

The decision says that the court finds "no rational basis" for penalizing the children of same-sex couples by depriving the parents of state benefits, simply because of their sexual orientation.

So for those who would try to revive the old canard "won't somebody think of the children?!", it appears that the courts have done just that.

[Tmy]

The marriage law in Mass is silent as to gender. It doesnt say "man and women". I think thats what the Mass SCJ hanged its hat on.

Sooooo if the mass legistlators add "man and women" to the statute wouldnt that pass muster?

[Richard G]

Latest word is the Mass. Legistlature is drafting a constitutional amendment to define mariage. (between 1 man and 1 woman)

[BTox]

Originally posted by Marc
[

Gee, this is realy going to PO conservatives. :D

Really? I have no problem whatsoever with gay marriages.

[Some Friggin Guy]

I've been following many of the arguments against gay marriage and I have yet to find one that is even remotely convincing to me in terms of why gays should not be afforded the equal right to get married that straight couples have.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Tony
I tend to dislike judicial activism, but I think this case may be an exception. The court didn’t rule in favor of gay marriage, it gave the legislature some time to come up with a solution. I think it’s a good compromise; hopefully the legislature will do the right thing.

Isn't this the opposite of judicial activism...? Sending it back to the legislature instead of inventing their own solution?

[shuize]

Not when the court tells the legislature what the result must be.

As BTox mentioned above, I don't have a problem with homosexual marriages, civil unions, or whatever you want to call them.

I do prefer the people of the state be allowed to decide such matters through their chosen representatives rather than have it decided for them by a court sitting as a "super-legislature."

(But since I have not read the opinion to know whether that's what happened in this case, I shall reserve judgment for now)

[American]

Thanks, Massholes.

I live in Mass... They just put out the Welcome mat for queerwads to gay up my manly state and the "Army of God" to come up from the Carolinas and bomb my peaceful street corners. We don't need this. I don't.

I'll be sitting in my favorite lawnchair with a beer and a garden hose, watching you fags and angry God-freaks fight it out. I'm warning both sides: Keep off my lawn.

[hal bidlack]

Originally posted by American
Thanks, Massholes.

I live in Mass... They just put out the Welcome mat for queerwads to gay up my manly state and the "Army of God" to come up from the Carolinas and bomb my peaceful street corners. We don't need this. I don't.

I'll be sitting in my favorite lawnchair with a beer and a garden hose, watching you fags and angry God-freaks fight it out. I'm warning both sides: Keep off my lawn.

This post has been reported for posible rule violations along the lines of hate speech. While I find "American's" post to be rather crude and droll, I do not find it to be a violation of the rules to the point that I feel I can censor it.

hal

[Tony]

Originally posted by American
Thanks, Massholes.

I live in Mass... They just put out the Welcome mat for queerwads to gay up my manly state and the "Army of God" to come up from the Carolinas and bomb my peaceful street corners. We don't need this. I don't.

I'll be sitting in my favorite lawnchair with a beer and a garden hose, watching you fags and angry God-freaks fight it out. I'm warning both sides: Keep off my lawn.


This is good humor. :D

[fishbob]

I'll be sitting in my favorite lawnchair with a beer and a garden hose, watching you fags and angry God-freaks fight it out. I'm warning both sides: Keep off my lawn. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, whew, HAHAHAHAHAHA



I was listening to the Lars Larson radio show on my drive home from work yesterday (Alaska AM radio has the full suite of right-wing wackos, and Lars is usually good for a laugh). He was ranting about this decision with statements like:
- NAMBLA will be thrilled about this.
- pedophiles will be free to do whatever they want.
- It will cost society more money.

No support for these positions, just lots of ranting. What an idiot.

[DaChew]

This is good humor.

Especially the part where he says Massachusetts is a manly state. Now that's funny.

Gee, this is realy going to PO conservatives.

Speaking as someone who's been slapped with the label "conservative" loads of times (though I don't think of myself that way) I have to report being completely unmoved by the entire issue. As a "conservative" I don't see where a government derives the power to choose who I can and can't marry.

The religious fundies will probably have a problem with this. Their use of the strongarm of government to dictate with whom individuals can and cannot form civil unions is hardly, in my estimation, conservative.

[Marc]

Originally posted by BTox


Really? I have no problem whatsoever with gay marriages.

Sorry, the christian conservatives have managed to dominate so much that it is hard to see there are still non-christian conservatives.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Marc


Sorry, the christian conservatives have managed to dominate so much that it is hard to see there are still non-christian conservatives.

Oops. Strike two. You assume I'm non-Christian because I have no problem with gay marriages? We're not all fundamentalists...

[fishbob]

Sorry, the christian conservatives have managed to dominate so much that it is hard to see there are still non-christian conservatives. Marc:
I believe the term you are trying to specify is "right-wing wackos".

BTox:
Please tell me you are not a right-wing wacko.

[Marc]

Originally posted by BTox


Oops. Strike two. You assume I'm non-Christian because I have no problem with gay marriages? We're not all fundamentalists...

Not at all. I assumed you were non-christian as they are in the minority here. My family is christian and with the possible exception of one of my sisters-in-law they are not fundies.

[shanek]

One point that keeps getting missed in all of this stuff about "judicial activism":

The Massachusetts Constitution is silent on the issue, as has been acknowleged by practically everybody. If the Constitution does not specifically authorize its government to do something, then it can't do it. Since the Mass. Constitution is silent on the issue, then the Mass. state legislature cannot ban gay marriages.

Simple as that.

[BTox]

Originally posted by fishbob
Marc:
I believe the term you are trying to specify is "right-wing wackos".

BTox:
Please tell me you are not a right-wing wacko.

Would a right-wing wacko be in favor of gay marriage? I consider myself a moderate Republican. If you've ever seen those liberal/conservative tests (Jesse Jackson a 1 and Jesse Helms a 99), I test in the high 50s.

I hope you're not a left-wing wacko! ;)

[BTox]

Originally posted by Marc


Not at all. I assumed you were non-christian as they are in the minority here.

Yes, I've noticed that, too. Funny, I've worked as a scientist for over 20 years and I think out of all the people I've had as colleagues, direct reports and bosses, I can count the total number of atheists I've ever known on one hand. Anyway, I don't get into religious discussions on internet forums ;)

[Marc]

Originally posted by BTox

Anyway, I don't get into religious discussions on internet forums ;)
probably why you are still a christian. Got at least two converts here, Ruby and I think RoadToad. Careful or we will pull you in too. ;) :D

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tony



This is good humor. :D

No. This is Good Humor

http://www.icecreamusa.com/products/images/large/41000-05315_large.jpg

[Troll]

Making sure we get things straight ( no pun intended)

Clinton screwed the gay community ( again, no pun intended)

Don't ask don't tell did nothing but give false hope to some and cause their early discharge.

He signed the Marriage Protection Act. The act definded marriage and gave states the right to refuse the marriage of gay couples.

So to all that would say conservatives are gonna wig, I say yeah, at the hypocricy of the liberals. ha ha, ha freaking ha.

Anyone bother reading up on Hillary's comments that pretty much go against what her husband did?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
One point that keeps getting missed in all of this stuff about "judicial activism":

The Massachusetts Constitution is silent on the issue, as has been acknowleged by practically everybody. If the Constitution does not specifically authorize its government to do something, then it can't do it. Since the Mass. Constitution is silent on the issue, then the Mass. state legislature cannot ban gay marriages.

Simple as that.

This is not precisely true. Unlike the federal Constitution, state (or commonwealth) constitutions include a grant of what is generally called "police" powers. This is a general grant of power to make laws for "the health, welfare, and morals of the populace." Thus, regulating marriage is a power well within that granted by a state constitution.

However, this power is subject to positive limitations present in the state constitution (or applicable to the states via the 14th amendment in the U.S. Const.) such as equal protection clauses and the like. What the Mass court said is that there was no reason identified by the state for denying gays the right to marry that didn't violate some other section of the constitution.

[gnome]

Originally posted by shanek
One point that keeps getting missed in all of this stuff about "judicial activism":

The Massachusetts Constitution is silent on the issue, as has been acknowleged by practically everybody. If the Constitution does not specifically authorize its government to do something, then it can't do it. Since the Mass. Constitution is silent on the issue, then the Mass. state legislature cannot ban gay marriages.

Simple as that.

One can argue for this philosophy of strict construction, and of course many have... but is it actually cited as a reason, by the courts?

While I can agree that out-of-control legislation can cause problems, I don't really see that requiring constitutional amendments for issues that the constitution (state or local) is silent on is the best course. Couldn't that lead to excessive constitution-changing for what really should be in the standard legislative process?

[HarryKeogh]

i'm all for gay marriages.

gay people should be allowed to be as miserable as straight people.