ChibiHorsewoman Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 ?WE DECLARE 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,? the court majority declared. Under a 1996 law, the federal government does not recognize gay marriages. One state, Vermont, allows same-sex civil unions. The key difference between civil unions and marriage is that benefits from civil unions would stop at the Massachusetts border while rights from marriage would extend across the country ? giving gay couples equality under federal laws for taxes, health and retirement benefits, among other areas. The Massachusetts court left the details of the issue to the Legislature, but advocates said the case took a significant step beyond the 1999 Vermont Supreme Court decision that led to civil unions in that state. Attorney Mary Bonauto, who represented the seven gay couples who sued the state, said the only task assigned to the Legislature is to come up with changes in the law that will allow gay couples to marry at the end of the 180-day period. Vermont-style civil unions would not be enough, she said, because that would fall short of marriage. A constitutional ban on gay marriage could not be enacted in Massachusetts until 2006 because it takes seveal years to change the state?s constitution. ?This is a very good day for gay and lesbian families in Massachusetts and throughout the country,? Bonauto said. 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.? A key group of state lawmakers also has recently been working behind the scenes to craft civil union legislation similar to the law passed in Vermont. At the national level, meanwhile, the U.S. House is considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage. And Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, promised to fight back, saying lawmakers should now consider a constitutional amendment ?to protect and safeguard marriage.? President Bush, although he believes marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman, recently said that a constitutional amendment is not yet necessary. OTHER RECENT RULINGS Gay and lesbian advocates had been cheered by a series of advances this year, including a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down anti-sodomy laws, the ordination of an openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, and a Canadian appeals court ruling that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. Belgium and the Netherlands also have legalized gay marriage. In addition to Vermont, courts in Hawaii and Alaska have previously ruled that the states did not have a right to deny marriage to gay couples. In those two states, the decisions were followed by the adoption of constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. No American court has ordered the issuance of a marriage license ? a privilege reserved for heterosexual couples. The Massachusetts case began in 2001, when 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, which administers the state?s marriage laws. A judge threw out the case in 2002, ruling that nothing in state law gives gay couples the right to marry. The couples appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court. 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. The state?s Attorney General?s office, which defended the Department of Public Health, argued that neither state law nor its constitution created a right to same-sex marriage. The state also said any decision to extend marriage to same-sex partners should be made by elected lawmakers, not the courts. [COLOR=red]I think that this is a good thing and I hope that more states will follow in Massachessette's lead. I believe that the difinition of marriage is between two people who love eachother reguardless of everything else. As a married person I don't feel that this lessens the vows between my husband and I. Hell I think that if this movement becomes a mainstream thing maybe the military will revoke the don't ask don't tell policy. Of course that's just my opinion. Part of the reason I put this up is to get some discussion going. But let's just remember discussion doesn't mean people bashing.[/COLOR] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rttocs77 Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 I am for gay marriages. My parents aren't though and I think they hate me because I am for them. I think homosexuality is mostly due to genetics and if you love someone the state shouldnt be allowed to say you cant marry. I mean obviously there are restrictions just like heterosexuals getting married, but I am all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiccansamurai Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 I don't understand all the prejudice against gays. Ban a person from a specific race from something, and its illegal, ban gays from getting a marriage liscence and its common sense? I don't understand that one bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radaghast Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 I think there should be nothing to bar gay marriages. It's a life-style that people chose to lead. There should be nothing to stop that. The government should know that things are starting to change a lot, and people are going to be more free about expressing themselves. Example: Just recently I was returning to my house from getting a haircut, when I saw some protestors. So I said to myself "great, more Phelps'(the Phelps are the local anti-gay prostestors), but it was the opposite. There were young people holding signs that said "Honk for Gay Rights." So I smiled, and we honked. I mean, these people were absolutely ESTATIC. One of the women looked like she was at a rock concert ready to flash the performers. It's that kind of excitement in their eyes and how happy they looked. I'm a heterosexual male, but I'm open to others and what they want to do. I don't think I'll ever turn homosexual, but if other people are, then let them. That's what I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest .h4ck Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 i think its good for them, they are human. But if they hit on me...well that all i got to say about that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by .h4ck [/i] [B]i think its good for them, they are human. But if they hit on me...well that all i got to say about that [/B][/QUOTE] [FONT=arial]You probably don't have to worry about that.[/FONT] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest .h4ck Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 hey, it happened once, ran like 3 towns over :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChibiHorsewoman Posted November 19, 2003 Author Share Posted November 19, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by .h4ck [/i] [B]hey, it happened once, ran like 3 towns over :D [/B][/QUOTE] I'm surprized, most gay men have better taste than that:laugh: I'm also glad that so far nobody has acted stupid about the whole thing...yet. I have to agree with Radaghast tho, Fred Phelps makes me :sick:. I mean exactly how Christian is it to protest a funeral? :mad: Just because the person was gay doesn't mean you have to ruin their afterlife:mad: Did you know that guy even tried to protest Mr.Roger's funeral because the guy didn't address the question of homosexuality?:angry2: Yes, he was a Presbitarian minister, but for the love of everything, the guy ran a children's show on Public Television. He wasn't on TBN!:cussing: This is what needs to be done to those political people thinking of overturning the recalled ban:modrod: 'nough said. They're thinking of trying to do this in NEw York as well. I think that'd be a good idea because then my husband's Aunt and her partner could get married even tho they've been living together for 17 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Samedi Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 I find myself incredibly disgusted with the rules that some Governments and ruling parties endorse. If they were gay, then they would be all for same-sex marriages. Marriage is [generally] a union between man and woman, but that is because [i]they love each other[/i]. They marry, because they are in love with each other and wish to fulfil and consummate their feeling for their other half. How are gay people different? They love each other, and wish to be together. Marriage is not between man and woman, but between lovers. They are trying to fob off the obvious and put up smokescreens. If they can pass the anti-gay marriage legislature through the system, it will be a disaster. The smokscreens will become solid, and they aren't really anything serious and real until that moment. I'm all for gay rights and their right to marriage. I believe Australia has gay marriage rights [do we?] but... yeah. There shouldn't even be an issue here. Civil Union is one step in the right direction, but marriage is a basic human right, and... it would be un-beneficial to ban it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SadClown Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Yes, I think I should have the right to get married if i so choose. However, in this day and age, marriage isn't shaping up to be didley... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Ofcourse it's against any constitution.... it violates the civil rights acts... It's about time someone actually read their own constitutions now.... and it's about time someone did and said something about it. America needs to take a step before everyone else... there's only two countries in the world that allow gay marriage, several other allow civil unions.... if America can step up to allow this... I think it would really show how great America really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patronus Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 [size=1][color=006699]I'm against banning gay marriages.. I mean, come on.. they say it's to stop the spread of AIDS or something, but I don't see anything but religion underlying.. just another thing where religion in the US takes place.. which also violates "Separation of Church and State." ([b]don't[/b] let this go into a religion war.. I just mentioned my opinion, don't take it further than need be.)[/color][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 [color=#707875]I'm not too surprised by this. I think this is the natural progression of things. All human beings in free societies are bound to be awarded their civil rights gradually. To me, this is just another sign that we are slowly moving in a better direction.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishie Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 [color=crimson]Hmmm O_O well..what do i say to this?. BAN GAY MARRIAGES!! IT IS WRONG!! X__x *voice drips sarcasm* Okay..im sorry i have a really weird sense of humour *twitches* Personally im all for it, i would like nothing more than to marry my girlfriend. We both live together and argue like a married couple anyway O_o so yes, im all for it totally. Now all they have to do is allow gay marriages in Tennessee and im all set *cackles determindly* Id also like to say. I have a great amount of respect for everyone that has posted in here. Its so comforting to see so many open-minded people in this world ^____^ *glomps everyone* Oh yeah O_o and if anyone does ever find out about legalising gay marriages in tennesee PM me or something O_o im usually the last person to know about these things. thanks![/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doukeshi Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Not wanting to sound like a broken record, voicing the opinions of others who have posted before me I feel myself inclined to agree. It is indeed like denying minority ethnic cultures the right to marry. It is illegal to verbally or in any other way abuse, hold prejudice against or descriminate against any minority, even gays. Therefore, how does the government get away with banning gay marriages? Denying a person that basic right simply because of their sexual orientation is just stupid really. I could understand if it was a ban on religious marriages (we all know what the catholic view on gays are ¬_¬), but I believe it is a ban on all state marriages is that correct? Foolish. Though I agree with James in the fact that the slow reformation of solitary state governments is indeed a step in the right direction. If America wants to prove itself to be a true pillar of freedom and power in the world then this needs to be resolved. There is no freedom in being denied marriage...whoever the hell you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiccansamurai Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 You want to know what I don't understand? You go to most chats on the net, and a majority of the people don't care if gays marry. And I've never met anyone all that against gay people, so is it just politicians and religous people? Not even all religous people, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anime_guy Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Who cares? I mean, yeah, it does screw up what a "family" is supposed to be.. But if they want to get married, LET THEM! I mean, come on, does it matter [I]that[/i] much? They get bennifits if they are married too, and we were denying(Sp) them those bennifits.. but, they ruled that it is legal, so yeah... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eleanor Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 [size=1] [i]"All men are to be equal."[/i]. [Hey, my memory isn't machine-quality, here.] The quote is from [i]some[/i] US document, whether it be the Declaration of Independence or the Articles of Confederation, but I know that it's somewhere. There are many people who say they have nothing against gays so that they appear to be accepting and understanding, when inside you just know they think they're downright wierd and disgusting. Well, screw them. The quote above is self-explanatory.[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SadClown Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 I think it's "All men are created equal." and that has a different conotation than "All men are equal." Yea it sux but when we give stupid people the ability to run our country, they will run it in their own idea of whats right and whats wrong. Furthermore, allowing same-sex marriage doesn't screw up "what a families supposed to be", becuase a family is made of love, no matter who it comes from. It DOES however, screw up the idea of a Nuclear Family or a sitcom family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiccansamurai Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 If more gays were allowed to marry, wouldn't that increase the number of kids being adopted? I mean, as long as they can't actually have children, they're probably going to adopt if they want a family, but if they're not married, they may feel its not right to bring a child into their home. So, in what way, is same sex marriage a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChibiHorsewoman Posted November 20, 2003 Author Share Posted November 20, 2003 I sometimes wonder the same thing samurai. Then I also wonder maybe if more homosexual marriages were allowed that the world's population would go down since there's so much over crowding. Believe it or not I'm being serious. The whole idea of a nuclear TV family with the perfect mom and the perfect dad with the Uber perfect kids was shattered as soon as Roseanne aired back in 1989. They've already got that sitcom with the one girl who has the two dads (or is it the guy with the two dads?) Yes, this country is still majorly conservative Protestant white, but we can change that. This generation needs to get out and vote and try to make a difference. Maybe throw a pie at someone. Who knows. The world is changing and homosexuality has always been there. Maybe not as out in the open as it is now (Will and Grace) but it's there. Besides, why shouldn't Massachesettes officialy allow this to happen. Haven't they heard of a Boston Wedding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortALdeath Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 I'm all for homosexual marriage, I mean if Vash wanted to marry me I should have the same right as all the straight people. ( I know it's the same arguement as everyone else) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doukeshi Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i] [B] Then I also wonder maybe if more homosexual marriages were allowed that the world's population would go down since there's so much over crowding. [/B][/QUOTE] How would that lower the population? Even if gay people weren't married they still wouldn't be able to have kids. There is also that artificial insemination thing these days so you don't even need to be in a relationship or hell, even have sex to have a kid anymore. Screws up the idea of the 'nuclear family' a bit there doesn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cahoots34 Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 As to the arguement that gay marriage should be banned to prevent the spread of AIDs (or something to a similar effect), doesn't the very concept of marriage imply a (hopefully) completely monogamous relationship? If anything, homosexual marriage would limit the spread of AIDS to the household of the so-afflicted, at least in my reasoning. Doesn't that make sound sense to you all? On a related note, I'm all for gay marriage. I'd still like a wedding, even though it might not be a groom that's my intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SadClown Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 ^^ You have a point but just becuase your married doesn't mean you wont cheat. Now adays the idea of marriage has become less and less seacred. As for "Boston Weddings" you have no idea. I used to live in Provincetown Mass. which is where that whole idea came from. You have never seen gay untill you've lived in the land of the eternal Marti Gra...good times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts