Semjaza Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 [url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ats-ap_top10feb04,0,5698391.story?coll=chi-news-hed[/url] [quote]BOSTON -- The Massachusetts high court declared Wednesday that gays are entitled to nothing less than marriage and that Vermont-style civil unions will not suffice, setting the stage for the nation's first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings by the spring. The court issued the advisory opinion at the request of legislators who wanted to know whether civil unions would be enough to satisfy the court after its November ruling that said gay couples are entitled to all the rights of marriage. That decision had been written in such a way that it left open the possibility that civil unions might be allowed. But Wednesday's opinion by the Supreme Judicial Court left no doubt: Only marriage would pass constitutional muster. "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," four justices wrote. "For no rational reason the marriage laws of the commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain. The (civil unions) bill would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits." Paul Martinek, editor of Lawyers Weekly USA, said that the blunt opinion erases any confusion. "The fat lady has sung and she's singing the wedding march," Martinek said. "It's clear from reading the majority opinion that there's no basis on which the (court) will OK anything other than marriage." The much-anticipated opinion came a week before next Wednesday's Constitutional Convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment backed by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. But 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. Gay couples could get married in Massachusetts as soon as May, the deadline set by the court last fall. "We're going to have to start looking for a band," said Ed Balmelli, who put down a deposit for a wedding after the opinion. The case represents a significant 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 decision striking down a Texas ban on gay sex. The White House called the Massachusetts ruling "deeply troubling." "Activist judges continue to seek to redefine marriage by court order without regard for the will of the people," said presidential spokesman Scott McClellan. Senate President Robert Travaglini, who will preside over the constitutional convention, said he would consult with fellow lawmakers about the next step. "I want to have everyone stay in an objective and calm state as we plan and define what's the appropriate way to proceed," he said. "There is a lot of anxiety out there obviously surrounding the issue but I don't want to have it cloud or distort the discussion." The federal government and 38 other states have enacted laws barring the recognition of any gay marriages in other jurisdictions. Vermont recognizes marriage-like civil unions that grant gay couples nearly all the rights and benefits of full marriage, such as health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights. The Massachusetts decision will probably lead to multiple lawsuits about whether gay marriage benefits can extend beyond the state's borders. The right to same-sex marriage would be for state residents only, but the rules are unclear on how it would be enforced. The legal battle in Massachusetts 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. 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. The state Senate then asked for more guidance from the court. "The dissimilitude between the terms `civil marriage' and `civil union' is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status," the justices wrote. Conservative leaders said they would redouble their efforts to pass the constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. "This now puts the pressure back on the Legislature to do their job to protect and defend marriage for the citizens of the state to allow them to vote," said Ron Crews, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute. Residents and leaders of Massachusetts towns with sizable gay populations saw the ruling as a good business opportunity. "The town can now offer something gays and lesbians have waited their whole lives for," said Provincetown tourism director Patricia Fitzpatrick. Mark Carmien has a sign in his gay-themed bookstore counting down the days to May 17 -- 103 as of Wednesday. His store is located in Northampton, a college town in western Massachusetts that has a large gay population. "It's now crystal clear, if it wasn't before, that the court meant marriage. The word itself has power and benefits that are intangible," said Carmien, who plans to marry his partner in June. "It's a very brave and historic decision."[/quote] Anyway, I thought this was of interest and definitely worth posting. A lot of it doesn't seem overly clear to me as I'm not a big political person, but it seems like a nice step in the right direction for gay people in this country. The local news said the "White House is left fuming" about the decision in their commercial, but I don't really know specifics. I guess they want to pass amendments to make it "man and woman" specifically though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eleanor Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 [color=firebrick] Yeah, who cares about the White House anyway? I think it's disgusting that people are fighting so harshly over the concept of gay marraige while the US claims that it is a country of freedom and equality. *coughs* That's all I have to say on the matter, even though I'm happy that it's now legal Massachusetts.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzureWolf Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Heh, yes, my Bio teacher has had quite some fun with this new ruling. Lately, politics has had a very comical nature, and it's been very enjoyable. However, I wouldn't call it the right direction... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiccansamurai Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 I'm happy. Its not their fault, and neither is it a bad thing, that they fall for people of the same sex. Sometimes, the White House only sees you being equal if you conform. Well, that's how it seems. I'm not a very political person. I'm sure some of my friends on some other boards will be happy to hear this. Yay! Are gay/lesbians all that different from us? I don't see where all the controversy is over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SadClown Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Black, White, Gay, Straight; on the inside we all have the same thing...GUTS, and for most people a heart...but mostly guts. I am glad that this has finally happened. I knew that Mass would be the first ever sence I lived there too. That Patricia Fitzpatric person, the tourism director from Provincetown, I know her cause I used to live there. I'd give anything to be there the day it goes into effect. It'll be SUCH a big party, considoring the whole town is gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AzureWolf [/i] [B]However, I wouldn't call it the right direction... [/B][/QUOTE] Yes, because the right direction includes straight white men ruling the world.... Oh wait, they already do.... God help us if anything ever changes with our people, that would be SOOOO HORRIBLE. Cause you know, it effects your miserable life so much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbfrontmanvdp Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 The way i see it is, let people live their own lives. Laws in our state governments shouldn't have control over what US citizens can always do and not do when it comes to situations like this. If it's not affecting society then by all means its fine by me. Im still not sure why they had/have a law like this in states around the country. My family, girlfriend, even most of my close friends just don't really let this bother them since if the two couples of the same sex are happy with each other, then thats all that really matters. Trust me, theres been really stupid constitutional state laws out there in the past and this one doesn't even come close to it for whoever thinks this is a bad law. *LoL side note hear.....sadclown, i dont know how to comment on the guts thing other than.....i just dont know what to say. Funny i like it.* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Samedi Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 All I have to say is: Excellent. I am glad to see that some people in high places have finally moved on something that should have been done a long time ago. Freedom of personal rights should entail the right to marriage. And that is that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xyandar Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 When this topic comes up it always annoys me because they are having such an uproar jus because gay people want to wed. Gay people aren't as different as us. We are all people. We should treat everyone with the SAME respect. They don't seem to get that. I am related to someone who is gay. I am glad to be. He lives in a big city and he takes all that ******* from people and still goes on. This guy is really special to me. He has always helped me and been here for me in the past. And because of that I'm so glad to be related to him. If he needed help with anything I would stand by his side. This dude is my brother. I don't care if people know. In fact, I'm glad i let this out:) because I know that they arent different.. Who cares if you like the same sex?! Maybe its a little strange at first but deal with it! lol. I really hope that this marriage thing is passed so he can get married because I'd be happy for him.I'm proud of him bein my brother and fightin for what he believes:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelus_Necare Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 Well I'm very glad they passed it. And I'm also happy that Bush's Anit-gay policies aren't making anyone back down. And I'm quite pleased because this gives me something to talk about in current events class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 [size=1]I don't want to sound like a bigot because I truth I have nothing against homosexuals but this post will make it look that way. As some people know I am an Irish Roman Catholicm, now the Pope, the Holy Father in Rome has stated publically that he is opposed to homosexual marriage and as the fact is that he is infallible I have to agree with him. The term marriage has been around for many hundreds of years as being the union between a man and a woman because it is the only way in which new human life can be formed (yes I am aware that there are other less accepted ways). I am all for people rights but this thing conflicts with my faith and my faith always wins.[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinken Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 I would have to disagree with the Pope's infallibility in general, because it means that he could say something completely out-of-the-blue, crazy, etc. and one would be 'forced' to agree and comply. To get to the topic at hand, I'd have to say that Massachusetts has taken a step in the right direction, as far as the rights of the people are concernerd. If people want to marry someone of the same gender, then let them. I find President Bush's opinion on this matter somewhat disturbing (and extremely disappointing). The man finds gay marriage 'wrong', and thinks it shouldn't be legal. He's repeatedly stated his dislike on the subject, as if his word is final, absolute, and infallible. Bush just sounds like he believes he knows exactly what everyone wants. Whereas a lot of people think that gay marriage should be legal. I mean, it's there choice, not Bush's. Like I said, Mass. made a good choice for people's rights. I'm not gay, but that doesn't mean I don't think I should have any more rights than gays. (Oh, and in other news... Lieberman dropped out of the election race! This is [b]good news[/b] for the gaming population of America. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzureWolf Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 [QUOTE]Yes, because the right direction includes straight white men ruling the world.... Oh wait, they already do....[/quote] Well, that's understandable, because, I mean, they did populate the world and are responsible for the existence of gay people. [quote]God help us if anything ever changes with our people, that would be SOOOO HORRIBLE. Cause you know, it effects your miserable life so much... [/QUOTE] Normally, I'd disagree with you and say that you are assuming gay people are somehow greater than normal people, able to influence people who could (and want to) care less about their activities; thinking that they have influence on my life when I couldn't care less. That's what I would normally say, but these events have affected me quite a bit. So, yes, IF my life was miserable, this latest development from the political circus would have made me a gay man, so to speak. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinken Posted February 5, 2004 Share Posted February 5, 2004 I'd have to disagree with you there, AzureWolf. If gays want marriage rights, I don't see how they're 'somehow greater', nor does it really influence your life if they're simply requesting the same rights that we straight people have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Fett Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Angelus_Necare [/i] [B]Well I'm very glad they passed it. And I'm also happy that Bush's Anit-gay policies aren't making anyone back down. And I'm quite pleased because this gives me something to talk about in current events class. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=green]Could you do me a favor and name a single one of Bush's policies that is anti-gay? For some reason I don?t recall any, but I could be wrong... I, like Lynx, don?t wish to be seen as a bigot here. I?m not a religious person, but I do oppose gay marriage. Marriage is an institution that is between a man and a woman. After all, it is through men and women that our species reproduces. Therefore, people who are attracted to others of their own gender are unnatural. This isn?t a bad thing; I am friends with several homosexuals and bisexuals. However, I don?t feel that any special kind of recognition should be given to relationships between homosexual couples. In the end, I don?t feel that this is my decision to make. My personal feelings on this matter are irrelevant, since this is a governmental issue. Under my interpretation of the laws of the United States, homosexual couples should be able to be married. Our country is founded on the principles of acceptance of equality, both of which would be shattered by preventing people of different sexual orientations from marrying.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Boba Fett [/i] [B][color=green]Marriage is an institution that is between a man and a woman. After all, it is through men and women that our species reproduces. Therefore, people who are attracted to others of their own gender are unnatural.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] I understand your argument, but it's not entirely valid. Numerous scientists have observed homosexual behavior in otherwise normal animals. This phenomena isn't restricted to a single species, but can be found in macaques, sheep, gulls, and so forth. While you're entitled to say that marriage should--for whatever reason--be restricted to opposite-sex couples, I don't think it's possible to prove that homosexuality is unnatural. Anyway, I'm all for gay marriage. Congratulations to the Massachusetts high court; their ruling is an important advance in civil rights, and I can only hope that the backlash won't be too severe. ~Dagger~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Fett Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dagger IX1 [/i] [B]I understand your argument, but it's not entirely valid. Numerous scientists have observed homosexual behavior in otherwise normal animals. This phenomena isn't restricted to a single species, but can be found in macaques, sheep, gulls, and so forth. While you're entitled to say that marriage should--for whatever reason--be restricted to opposite-sex couples, I don't think it's possible to prove that homosexuality is unnatural. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=green]Homosexual behavior, in any species, is unnatural. Unnatural - Deviating from a behavioral or social norm In this case, I?d argue that the social norm is heterosexuality. After all, the majority of organisms of all species must practice it in order to propagate their species. Therefore, anything that is not heterosexual in nature must be unnatural. Your use of the word ?phenomena? is an example of this Phenomenon - An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence The key word here is unusual. That?s about it?[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzureWolf Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 [B]Shinken:[/B] I was referring to TN's comment, not gay marriages. [quote]This phenomena isn't restricted to a single species, but can be found in macaques, sheep, gulls, and so forth.[/quote] If I remember correctly (which I probably don't), there are a lot of animals that have a certain period where a strong sexual drive consumes them. They'll basically do it with anything - even a rock. O_o I don't think it's homosexuality that's making them so. Now, if they were ONLY doing it to the same gender and not anything that they tried to do it to, then I'd be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Boba Fett [/i] [B][color=green]Homosexual behavior, in any species, is unnatural. Unnatural - Deviating from a behavioral or social norm In this case, I?d argue that the social norm is heterosexuality. After all, the majority of organisms of all species must practice it in order to propagate their species. Therefore, anything that is not heterosexual in nature must be unnatural. Your use of the word ?phenomena? is an example of this Phenomenon - An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence The key word here is unusual. That?s about it?[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Perhaps I was unclear. I used the word "phenomena" because many people are surprised to learn that homosexuality is not unique to human beings. Male California gulls sometimes become scarce. When there simply aren't enough to go around, females may choose to raise their young alongside another female, using the same courting rituals as they would with a male member of the species. Some of these couples remain monogamous for years. Yet though they cannot copulate, the female gulls together protect and feed the offspring which were abandoned by their father. These birds' communities are structured so that a two-parent family is required for the fledglings to survive; it seems to me that here homosexuality serves a very useful and specific purpose. I just wanted to mention that sexual intercourse is not the only way that animals can assist in the continuation of their species. Besides, assuming that it's unnatural, how does one account for homosexuality in animals? What do you think causes their behavior? EDIT: AzureWolf, I'm not an expert, so I could be wrong on this. However, I've read that a small percentage of certain animals only exhibit sexual interest towards others of their sex. The rest, as you implied, don't discriminate much between genders. Anyway, you provided a pretty decent answer to my question, so I guess you're off the hook. ^_~ ~Dagger~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan L Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dagger IX1 [/i] [B]Male California gulls sometimes become scarce. When there simply aren't enough to go around, females may choose to raise their young alongside another female, using the same courting rituals as they would with a male member of the species. Some of these couples remain monogamous for years. Yet though they cannot copulate, the female gulls together protect and feed the offspring which were abandoned by their father. These birds' communities are structured so that a two-parent family is required for the fledglings to survive; it seems to me that here homosexuality serves a very useful and specific purpose.[/B][/QUOTE] Rewind back to: [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dagger IX1 [/i] [B]Male California gulls sometimes become scarce.[/B][/QUOTE] Humans, on the other hand, are far from scarce. Thus the useful purpose doesn't really apply in the same way. Natural or un-natural, from an objective point of view, it is counter-productive, as it prevents the animal/person from having sexual desires which would lead to a continuation of the genetic line. From a subjective point of view however... Well, by it's very nature a subjective point of view has no specific form. My view on it is that homosexuality is just not how God intended people to be. My view is also that God didn't intend people to be lustful, but well, I've blown that one a great number of times. Several times just today, out of habit. I may have lust in more control than a lot of people out there, but hey- it's still there, so it's still a problem. And yet I still hold firm to my faith in God, not believing that my imperfection makes him any less accessable, because hey, if it did, there'd only be three people destined for heaven, and even they would only be one being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James P. Galvatron Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Boba Fett [/i] [B][color=green]Homosexual behavior, in any species, is unnatural. Unnatural - Deviating from a behavioral or social norm In this case, I?d argue that the social norm is heterosexuality. After all, the majority of organisms of all species must practice it in order to propagate their species. Therefore, anything that is not heterosexual in nature must be unnatural. Your use of the word ?phenomena? is an example of this Phenomenon - An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence The key word here is unusual. That?s about it?[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] I have to side with Boba on this one I don't think that a gay marriage is considered normal a natural thing. All I have to say is I don't think homosexuality is an okay thing if they want to do it thats fine. I just feel bad for any kids who they adopt or whatever thats alot of discrimination you will feel because of your parents beliefs and ideals as long as children aren't hurt by the process cause we children are the future you know. So I think gay marriage is okay even though I don't truly agree with it its there life you know. :babble: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Fett Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dagger IX1 [/i] [B] Male California gulls sometimes become scarce. When there simply aren't enough to go around, females may choose to raise their young alongside another female, using the same courting rituals as they would with a male member of the species. Some of these couples remain monogamous for years. Yet though they cannot copulate, the female gulls together protect and feed the offspring which were abandoned by their father. These birds' communities are structured so that a two-parent family is required for the fledglings to survive; it seems to me that here homosexuality serves a very useful and specific purpose.[/B][/QUOTE] [color=green]Homosexual - Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons (in this case animals) of the same sex This is not an example of homosexuality. As I read this, it appears that the female gulls would not work together to raise their young if there were males around. This is a behavior born of necessity, not of sexual orientation.[/color] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dagger IX1 [/i] [B]Besides, assuming that it's unnatural, how does one account for homosexuality in animals? What do you think causes their behavior?[/B][/QUOTE] [color=green]I?m no expert on sexuality, but based on my limited knowledge I?d say that homosexuality is either a mutation of some kind or something brought about by circumstances. I really don?t know.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dan L [/i] [B]Humans, on the other hand, are far from scarce. Thus the useful purpose doesn't really apply in the same way.[/B][/QUOTE] You're right. Thank you for clarifying what I said; I only meant for my example to illustrate something about the animal kingdom. While people's activities may sometimes be analogous to those of birds, the needs of the two species differ greatly. [quote][i]Originally posted by Inuyasha7271[/i] [b]I just feel bad for any kids who they adopt or whatever thats alot of discrimination you will feel because of your parents beliefs and ideals[/b][/quote] Being homosexual or bisexual isn't a matter of beliefs and ideals; it has to do with which gender you're physically attracted to. ~Dagger~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patronus Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 [color=404040][size=1]I actually just wrote an essay on gay marriages. I'm very happy this has been passed. And I want to say one more thing, to those of you who find this morally and/or religiously wrong: I'm sorry for being attracted to men. I can't help being attracted to the sexiness that [i]is[/i] men. I'm sorry that I want to be with a guy. I'm sorry. Maybe it'd be easier for you if I died? Yeah, sure would be. But I don't want to make life easier for you, do I?[/size][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted February 6, 2004 Share Posted February 6, 2004 Blah blah blah, marriage is an institution between man and woman, blah blah blah. Grow up losers. Anyone who opposed gay marriage is a BIGOT. You're all just bigots and afraid to say it. The president is a bigot. You are a bigot and since you can't seem to see it, I'll tell you it. In no way does e getting married to another man effect your life. Nor does it effect your future life or the future between straight people getting married. You're not changing anything about the basics of marriage, you're adding more to it. If I have an engine and a body I have the basics to a car, if I add a body kit or turbos to this engine or body, it doesn't change the complete meanng of my car, it is just simply adding to it. Adding men-men and women-women unions to the meaning of marriage in no way effects the meaning of marriage. It won't effect straight people from getting married either. What about this simple idea can you morons not get through your thick bigotted heads? Your argument is useless and worthless. You mise well just come out and say you don't like gay people and say you're a bigot cause thats what you really are. No use in hiding behind some poorly thought out ridiculous ideas, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts