(CNN) Mass high court rules only full gay marriage rights will meet

[pinto]

their ruling standard, civil unions won't cut it.

(no link yet)

ed for clarity

[southerngirlwriter]

1. GREAT NEWS!!

Hooray!!! Congrats to all in the gay community who may finally enjoy equality SOMEWHERE!! Very happy for you!! :hi:

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Great news! But, here come da fundies...

Shrub and the Kittykiller will be upping the ante by the end of the day, no doubt...

[Dhalgren]

3. Ooops! Got carried away and dubed - sorry.

[Dhalgren]

4. Good!

It is time to cut the crap about "equal but separate" garbage. It didn't work with Jim Crow and it won't work now. Only full and unfettered equality, and none of that sexist drivle, will be acceptable. Our nation has wasted enough time and energy trying to descriminate against people based upon what gives them a woody. Let's move on.

[Rockholm]

5. Woo Hoo!...

[Sticky]

6. Link.

What a great day!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20040204/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

[mn9driver]

7. 'Bout time! But now we'll hear about "Judicial Activism" for

the next news cycle, while WMD, AWOL, Plame etc, etc get ignored. Still, good news.

[liberal72]

8. Judicial Activism?

When will the right learn that Judicial Activism, as they define it, not exist. The judges are not making up the laws, they are reviewing the laws passed by the legislature and seeing if they pass constituitional muster. Also, this "unelected judges" bs the right spews is obsurd. These judges were appointed by an elected (or appointed in BushCo's case) president and confirmed by an elected congress. When will the right finally pick up a copy of the U.S. Constitution they say they love so much and read it?

[iverglas]

19. the problem anybody saying that would have, in this case

... is that the legislative branch asked the Court for its opinion!

Up here in Canada, we call it a "reference" -- another branch of the federal government may refer a question to the Supreme Court of Canada, for instance. The federal executive referred the question of the legality of Quebec secession, and has now referred the question of jurisdiction over marriage and the constitutionality of prohibiting same-sex marriage.

The Massachusetts Senate did exactly that; as the Court's opinion says, right in the first line:

http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/sjc_020404/

On February 3, 2004, the Justices submitted the following answer to a question propounded to them by the Senate.

It goes on to say:

The undersigned Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court respectfully submit their answers to the question set forth in an order adopted by the Senate on December 11, 2003, and transmitted to the Justices on December 12, 2003. The order indicates that there is pending before the General Court a bill ... entitled "An Act relative to civil unions." A copy of the bill was transmitted with the order. As we describe more fully below, the bill adds G. L. c. 207A to the General Laws, which provides for the establishment of "civil unions" for same-sex "spouses," provided the individuals meet certain qualifications described in the bill.

The order indicates that grave doubt exists as to the constitutionality of the bill if enacted into law and requests the opinions of the Justices on the following "important question of law":

"Does Senate, No. 2175, which prohibits same-sex couples from entering into marriage but allows them to form civil unions with all 'benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities' of marriage, comply with the equal protection and due process requirements of the Constitution of the Commonwealth and articles 1, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 16 of the Declaration of Rights?"

Under Part II, c. 3, art. 2, of the Constitution of the Commonwealth ..., "<e>ach branch of the legislature, as well as the governor or the council, shall have authority to require the opinions of the justices of the supreme judicial court, upon important questions of law, and upon solemn occasions." "<A> solemn occasion exists 'when the Governor or either branch of the Legislature, having some action in view, has serious doubts as to their power and authority to take such action, under the Constitution, or under existing statutes.'" Answer of the Justices, 364 Mass. 838, 844 (1973), quoting Answer of the Justices, 148 Mass. 623, 626 (1889). The pending bill involves an important question of law and the Senate has indicated "grave doubt" as to its constitutionality. We therefore address the question. See Opinion of the Justices, 430 Mass. 1205, 1207 (2000).

The *Senate* doubted the constitutionality of legislation against same-sex marriage, and the Court answered the question put to it by the Senate. The Senate does not have to act as the Court recommends, but can expect that if it passes the legislation and someone challenges it, the Court will strike it down.

If the Massachusetts constitution were amended to prohibit same-sex marriage, it would then be a document that promised "equal protection" and "due process" for everyone, and denied it to certain people. In other words, an internally contradictory dog's breakfast.

The judgment itself, from what I've read of it, seems quite excellent and not at all vague as I gather has been suggested in the media. It properly focuses on equal rights as necessary to the dignity and worth of every human being, just as the Canadian courts that have reached the same conclusion regarding same-sex marriage have done.

.

[pinto]

20. kick. Mass SJC was specific in responding to legislature request and

reviewing that request in constitutional terms. That is their job.

[mn9driver]

29. But that didn't stop them; they are SOOO predictable!

Here it is, from the White House:

Addressing Wednesday's ruling, McClellan said it is just the kind of meddling by "activist" judges Bush warned about in his State of the Union address last month. Bush said if such rulings continue, a constitutional amendment may be needed.

I think my head is going to explode...

[cboy4]

9. Oh No!!!

This news could give Pat Robertson a heart
attack. Gosh, I pray that doesn't happen. :evilgrin:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

10. Typical Liberal Heathen Elitist Massachusetts Legislature

I am proud to be a Masshole today! I can't wait to see the fundies freaking out all over TV...

:party: :toast:

[onehandle]

11. Rove's wildest wet dream has come true.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[davidinalameda]

12. Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage.ap/index.html

The Massachusetts high court ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples -- rather than civil unions -- would be constitutional, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages could take place in the state beginning in mid-May.

[David__77]

13. Hmm... I am concerned (though of course I support marriage equality.)

I'm gay. I'm married, though of course not legally. In California, where I live, my spouse and I are recognized as "domestic partners." This is a very important issue. Many lives have been ruined because of marriage inequality--homes lost, rights not recognized and so on, to say nothing of the health benefit/tax/social security issue. We need marriage rights!

However, I think we need to proceed strategically. MA must now provide marriage licenses for same-sex couples. This is clear. We will probably see same-sex marriage occur.

The danger is the amendment. We must, must prevent this from being enacted. Two things can stop this.

1. Get more than a third of either house of congress to say "no." This, in my opinion, is the best bet.

2. Get thirteen states to not ratify it. We may have some luck here as well.

So, this ruling will nationalize the issue and will mean that every state legislator or congressional or senatorial candidate must be prepared to by questioned on this matter of an amendment.

We need to say that "it's not right to put this is in the constitution. Our constitution isn't for things like this." We need to build our position on this, with different angles for different people.

We need to focus on Rev. Fred Phelps of "God Hates Fags" fame.

We need to stress the term "civil marriage." Whenever we talk about same-sex marriage, we must say "civil marriage" to stress its government not religious meaning. We must stress that churches will only have to perform marriages as they see fit.

We can win this, and when the dust settles, we'll be better for it. I do not recommend challenging DOMA until it's clear that an amendment will not pass.

[Puglover]

14. I think my partner and I will hold off on picking out the china for

abit. I'm sure the freepers are going to put up a big brohaha. It puts Bunnypants on the hotseat bigtime. That gives me much more pleasure then any thoughts of skipping gaily down the aisle.

On edit...."Kittykiller" LOL...that made my day.

[David__77]

15. Do pick out the china.

Just because the government doesn't recognize it doesn't mean you can't get married. There are same-sex marriages now--they just aren't recognized by the state. Our creation of actual institutions will impact the ease with which society adjusts to the full equality of lesbian and gay citizens.

[confusionisnext]

21. gay marriage in California

Just as a heads up, I recently read in the paper that Assemblyman Mark Leno will be introducing gay marriage legislation in the Assembly next month. Would Ahnold sign the bill if it passed?

[David__77]

26. On marriage equality bill in CA.

Yes, this is a positive development. It will not pass out of the legislature this time. Out of 80 assemblymembers, only 41 voted for expanding domestic partnership, and some of those are not in favor of marriage equality.

We are having a pro-marriage rights rally coming up though in the capitol and we will have Margaret Cho and others there. It should be good, and very timely in light of this fight.

Schwarzenegger said basically the same thing as Davis did--marriage no, domestic partnerships yes. I don't think he wants to speak against same-sex marriage though, as it would tinge his image.

[NewHampster]

17. Good for Gays - bad for Kerry

(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court reiterated Wednesday that only full marriage rights for gay couples, not civil unions, would be constitutional.

boy are the repukes gonna have a field day with this one.

you can forget the economy, war or health being the top issue in November.

and I haven't even researched how many of the judges are personal friends of the Senator....

[David__77]

18. Judges are Republicans.

I think they all or almost all are GOP-appointed. I know the author of the opinion is GOP. Bill Weld is pro-gay marriage. I predict that Edwards will benefit from this if people perceive that it will cause Kerry a problem. "Winning" has become the watchword.

[llmart]

23. Yes, I've been thinking the same thing.

Isn't that one of the reasons they claimed Dean may not be as "electable"; because of his stance while Governor in Vermont?

[yellowcanine]

24. I am not so sure of that

I agree with you that the pubes will demagogue away on this one till the cows come home. But I doubt that it will do much more than rile up the Focus on the Family types - and yeah, maybe get a few more of them to the polls who might have stayed home. But I believe most people will either yawn or be pissed off that Bush is trying to divert their attention from his failures with this issue. If Kerry plays this correctly in a debate he could turn this issue in his favor. Nobody benefits by denying recognition of same-sex unions and Kerry should spell that out. Kerry can also say things like, "he wants to talk about gay marriages, I want to talk about jobs for Americans. I can see why he doesn't want to talk about jobs because we have 2 million fewer jobs since he took office....etc."

[Scottie72]

25. Great point....

I was thinking the same thing. Call it out as a diversion and say that the real issue here should be that * is going to be the first president since Hoover to have negative job growth...etc.

[NewHampster]

27. See My Post - re: 5 Judges are Rep 2 Dem

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1084987&mesg_id=1084987

[Scottie72]

22. It is a good day

It is a very good day! We are one step closer to finally securring full citizenship in our country. I want to thank the 4 very courageous judges.

We can cheer this victory today, but don't think for one minute the right will lay down. The right is going to continue to hammer away at getting the amendment into the constitution. They are going to try this for years and years to come, the truth is we are going to have to continue to fight.

Unfortunately this issue more and more is looking like it is going to be a big issue in the upcoming election. I really wish that I could snap my fingers and make it go away. It sounds so simple: two adults who love one another wish to make their parntership permenant should be able regardless of the gender of the two individuals. I just want to be able to marry my partner of 3.5 years and live our lives. We just want to live our lives, and by the government recongnizing our marriage it could make our lives so much easier. We don't have to worry about each others beneficiaries, getting to visit one another in a hosptial, being able to make decisions for each other if a meical emergency happens and over a thousand more reasons.

This is a great first step but the fight is long from over!

[foreigncorrespondent]

28. This is great news...

...but now, we gotta sit back and watch as the country tries to legally deem gays, second class citizens, through the FMA.

On edit: I can't spell!

[David Dunham]

30. Bad News for Our Chances of Beating Bush

[foreigncorrespondent]

32. Well then...

...you obviously don't hold much faith in your own political party for being able to pull this off, considering the fact that the majority of the country are against using the constitution to deem a group of people second class citizens.

[cboy4]

33. WTF?!?!

Oh yea, this gay marriage issue is far, far more
outrageous than the WMD lies and the
war, the record budget deficit and the
terrible state of the economy, Haliburton
screwing the taxpayers, the frightening
Patriot Act, the tax cuts for the wealthy,
the Florida election fraud,
and I can go on and on.
If people vote for Bush because they are
opposed to this gay marriage decision, then they
weren't going to vote for any of the democratic
candidates anyway -- because this gay marriage
issue is a speck of sand in the desert of the
Bush Administration's incompetence. :mad:

[foo_bar]

31. quote of the year

Mitt Romney: "This issue is too important to leave to a one-vote majority of the SJC."

We sure know the feeling.

[JusticeForAll]

34. Good catch foo bar! n/t

[zanana]

35. States' rights will be ignored again.

Republicans now want an amendment to the constitution, forever barring gay marriage in this country. They want it to be federal law, not state law. These aren't the same Republicans who used to yell "States' Rights" even four years ago.

[Clovis Sangrail]

36. Why marriage and not civil unions?

Before I start
- please don't accuse me of being a fundie or a homophobe, because I am very definitely neither.

I am having a hard time understanding why so many people seem to be in favor of marriages vs. civil unions.
I don't feel that breeders should have marriages and gays unions, rather that the state should _only_ be concerned with civil unions and leave marriages to the churches.

I realize that this _is_ a step in the right direction, but it would seem to be a far better step at this point to push for unions, and push MA to only engage in civil unions (gay or straight).
The marriage thing is only going to play into the hands of religious right, and they'll get people who would most likely support unions to be indignant because "their religion is being attacked".

I've been able to convince a few conservative types that if they believe all citizens are equal, they logically have to accept civil unions... regardless of if their religion does.
Trying to impose a legal definition on what most people consider to be religious institution seems unlikely to succeed.

Why not just take the religion stick away?

[David__77]

37. Here is an answer to that question.

"No sex before marriage." That's the message of "abstinence education." This tells gay youth they are immoral by inference. If we win this fight, it will fundamentally alter the landscape. EVEN if it's only in one state. Couples here in CA will still be married in the USA, it's just that their own backward state doesn't recognize it yet. Having a separate category just contributes in the long run to the "otherness" and non-integration of gay people.

Tell you what though, I wouldn't mind if government changed the name of civil marriage to civil unions for everyone, and leave the word "marriage" to the non-governmental churches, culture at large and so forth. But that's not going to happen, so we have to fight for equal rights. That means marriage.