Massachusetts court rules in favour of gay marriage

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-11-18 12:11pm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/sames ... index.html

Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Tuesday, November 18, 2003 Posted: 10:59 AM EST (1559 GMT)

(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law, and gave the state Legislature 180 days to find a solution, The Associated Press reported.

In the United States, Vermont is the only state to allow same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Vermont calls them civil unions, rather than marriages.

California's State Assembly has passed a domestic partnership law to provide similar benefits, but it stops short of allowing gays to marry.

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

Arguments in the case were heard March 4. Under its internal guidelines, the court usually tries to issue decisions within 130 days of hearing such arguments, but the decision went past the anticipated summer deadline.

The case was filed by seven same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses and has attracted national attention, with advocates on both sides predicting that the Massachusetts court could become the first in the nation to legalize gay marriage.

"We're talking about people who don't have equality under the law and should have it, because all citizens in this state are born free and equal," Mary Bonauto, an attorney for the plaintiffs who also works for the Boston-based Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said last summer.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional, and last June 10, an appeals court in the Canadian province of Ontario struck down a ban on same-sex marriage.
States determine marriage laws

In the United States, marriage laws are determined by states, and a number of states have passed laws forbidding gays from marrying, often also barring the recognition of a same-sex marriage performed in another state. The federal government's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), while not an outright ban on gay marriage, declares that states are not required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

DOMA, passed by Congress in 1996, also effectively bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions by defining marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and spouse as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Among the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts case are Julie and Hillary Goodridge, women who have been a couple for 16 years. They are raising a daughter, Annie, who is 7 years old.

In Goodridge et al v. Department of Public Health, the Goodridges and six other couples seek recognition of their marriages.

Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Judith Yogman argued the state's case before the court in March, saying the state wants to encourage the heterosexual model of marriage.

Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly had argued it is for the legislature, not the courts, to decide whether to redefine the institution of marriage.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-11-18 12:13pm

Equal Rights - 1, Religious Zealots - 0.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-11-18 12:21pm

Suck it Freepers, suck it hard and DEEP

Psycho Smiley · Post by **Psycho Smiley** » 2003-11-18 12:32pm

Yay! Now watch the fundies go apeshit.

Wild Karrde · Post by **Wild Karrde** » 2003-11-18 12:58pm

Psycho Smiley wrote:Yay! Now watch the fundies go apeshit.

Yep, Some fucktard was just on CNN and said the ruling would drive civilization off a cliff

and that it's just as bad as when the south said slavery was ok.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-11-18 01:27pm

if anything this will round up the troops for the 'definition of marriage ammendment' in Massachusetts. For those who don't know what i'm talking about last year Massachusetts came within a hair's breadth of enacting a state constituntional ammendment declaring marriage as a unioun between a man and a woman and effectively banning gay marriage in the state. That ammendment was only struck down by a procedural vote in the legislature and would have passed the legislature if submitted to a full vote. It would have been signed by Mormon Governot Mitt Romney and would have passed in a general election 70%-30%. I was listening to the local radio at lunch and it seems that come next election cycle the ammendment WILL be on the ballot. If the ammendment passes it will be near impossible to pass a gay marraige bill because judges cannot overturn a constututional ammendment, furthermore you need the same 2/3rd majority, governors signature and general referrendum to repeal an ammendment. In the long term, this does more damage to the gay marrage cause than good.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-11-18 01:39pm

I don't know... I'm not against gay marriages per se; I just don't really want to know about it. However, when it comes to raising kids... I think there's a definite possibility of the kids getting screwed up if they're being raised by a gay or lesbian couple. However, I know that there's also a high possibility of them getting screwed up in a regular man/woman couple with the way that divorces are skyrocketing, so that point is kind of moot.

*sigh* I just wish there would be a way to get America un-fucked in the head.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-11-18 01:58pm

Crayz9000 wrote:*sigh* I just wish there would be a way to get America un-fucked in the head.

[Sarcastic Mode On]Get rid of religion and everything will be ok[SarcasticMode Off]

Saurencaerthai · Post by **Saurencaerthai** » 2003-11-18 04:12pm

Thankfully, I'm old enough to vote in the next election. No vote for you, Herr Romney!

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-11-18 04:24pm

Saurencaerthai wrote:Thankfully, I'm old enough to vote in the next election. No vote for you, Herr Romney!

It's not just Herr Romney, but Herr Thomas Finnerran as well. Speaker Finneran has publicly stated that he supports the ammendment and Finnerran has a death grip on the Massachusetts Democratic party, which has a deathgrip on the legislature, which consequently has a deathgrip on the Commonwealth. Old yankee politics has been the same for a hundred years. The Democrats in Massachusetts (and Rhode Island and Connecticut), while very liberal regarding matters of economics are for the most part socially conservative. Catholics and unions run the show....... the so-called 'Reagan Democrats'.

z020898 · Post by **z020898** » 2003-11-18 05:56pm

Courts 1, Democracy 0

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-11-18 06:17pm

Justice 1
Discrimination 0

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-18 06:22pm

Wild Karrde wrote:
Yep, Some fucktard was just on CNN and said the ruling would drive civilization off a cliff and that it's just as bad as when the south said slavery was ok.

That's the kind of person I'd expect to say "Its as bad as when they let them damn Negro's be free"

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-11-18 06:25pm

Wild Karrde wrote:
Psycho Smiley wrote:Yay! Now watch the fundies go apeshit.
Yep, Some fucktard was just on CNN and said the ruling would drive civilization off a cliff and that it's just as bad as when the south said slavery was ok.

Wow...
People like that should go and take a look out of their collective asses. Other countries hava had gay marriages for some time now, and *gasp* they're still there!

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-11-18 06:34pm

Wild Karrde wrote:
Psycho Smiley wrote:Yay! Now watch the fundies go apeshit.
Yep, Some fucktard was just on CNN and said the ruling would drive civilization off a cliff and that it's just as bad as when the south said slavery was ok.

What is their obsession with slippery slopes, anyway? And if he said that it was just as bad as when slavery was legalized, wouldn't that make it a good thing?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-11-18 06:43pm

z020898 wrote:Courts 1, Democracy 0

Majority sentiment does not overule minority rights.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-11-18 06:46pm

If we can just keep Bush's extremist out of the courts, and Robertson's constitutional admendment from passing, this whole 'equal rights' thing may actually work.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-11-18 07:28pm

Fundies at rr-bb.com are having a collective brain aneurysm over this.

Take a look:
http ://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s= 1455443ce6721ae4ec0ef45c2f5d204e&threadid=118311

Fix the long link.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-11-18 07:30pm

Yep. I'm SkyFullofStars.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-11-18 07:31pm

NO ACTIVE LINKS TO THAT BOARD, MORON. Post Deleted.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-11-18 07:32pm

FUCK! Direct link! I'm fucking sorry!

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-11-18 07:39pm

Sir Sirius wrote:Fundies at rr-bb.com are having a collective brain aneurysm over this.

Take a look:
http ://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s= 1455443ce6721ae4ec0ef45c2f5d204e&threadid=118311

Fix the long link.

Yikes, I got a brain aneurysm after the first page... How can *anyone* be so dense? I mean you'd expect light to bend around them....

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-11-18 07:44pm

Sir Sirius wrote:Fundies at rr-bb.com are having a collective brain aneurysm over this.

That's disturbing. They're predicting that God will come down off his mightly throne and start dishing out some old fashioned woop ass in responce to our disobedience. I can't explain in mere words how totally fucking scared I am.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-11-18 07:44pm

z020898 wrote:Courts 1, Democracy 0

Fuck you asshole!

What you dont seem to understand about the United States, is that we are a cnstitutional republic. The rights of the minority, are protected from the mob rule of a tyranical majority. These include the rights of an individual to be recognized equally by the government. 14th ammendment fucktard!

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-11-18 07:46pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:If we can just keep Bush's extremist out of the courts, and Robertson's constitutional admendment from passing, this whole 'equal rights' thing may actually work.

I will have to check the status of the Democatic parties Filibuster...

The good thing is... that Amendment will never pass.