Mass. Court Rules Gay Marriage Ban Illegal

[sexylilmissie]

it should be interesting to see what they do up here as well. the canadian supreme court has ruled that refusing gay marriages is unconsitiutional and the pm has passed legislature allowing them (causing the rush to toronto to get married)

but i live in alberta...the province that has said it will not allow them no matter what the courts say. it should be interesting after the change of power up here to see what happens

 

[Pookie]

Re: Overdue, but good

This is long overdue, and it's outrageous that gays and lesbians should have been denied the right to marry for so long, but it is a positive development. Of course, the Republicans will use the issue to rally their fascistic base, and the Democrats will spinelessly cower before the extreme right wing, as usual.

I personally believe things won't change until the US Supreme Court makes a major decision regarding equality for gays. I expect it will come in the form of striking some law(s) involving some high profile issue, such as bans on gay marriage. Then I believe straight Americans will be forced to begin the process of accepting us.

It took the Supreme Court in Canada to make gay marriage legal, then legislation began to follow. I don't see any of the major parties in this country initiating anything once in power, except maybe further discrimination.

 

[Pookie]

A WONDERFUL new ruling!

Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 Posted: 12:34 PM EST (1734 GMT)


BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- 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.

The court issued the opinion in response to a request from the state Senate about whether Vermont-style civil unions, which convey the state benefits of marriage -- but not the title -- would meet constitutional muster.

"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion. A bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls short of marriage, makes for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."

The much-anticipated opinion sets the stage for next Wednesday's constitutional convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Without the opinion, Senate President Robert Travaglini had said the vote would be delayed.

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 no matter what is decided at the constitutional convention.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change state laws to make it happen.

But almost immediately, the vague wording of the ruling left lawmakers -- and advocates on both side of the issue -- uncertain if Vermont-style civil unions would satisfy the court's decision. (More on the Massachusetts ruling)

The state Senate asked for more guidance from the court and sought the advisory opinion, which was made public Wednesday morning when it was read into the Senate record.

When it was issued in November, the 4-3 ruling set off a firestorm of protest across the country among politicians, religious leaders and others opposed to providing landmark rights for gay couples to marry.

President Bush immediately denounced the decision and vowed to pursue legislation to protect the traditional definition of marriage. Church leaders in the heavily Roman Catholic state also pressed their parishioners to oppose efforts to allow gays to marry.

And legislators were prepared to vote on a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would seek to make the court's ruling moot by defining as marriage as a union between one man and one woman -- thus expressly making same-sex marriages illegal in Massachusetts.

What the case represented, both sides agree, was a significant new 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 a Texas ban on gay sex.

Legal experts, however, said that the long-awaited decision, while clearly stating that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage, gave ambiguous instructions to the state Legislature.

Lawmakers remained uncertain if civil unions went far enough to live up to the court's ruling -- or if actual marriages were required.

When a similar decision was issued in Vermont in 1999, the court told the Legislature that it could allow gay couples to marry or create a parallel institution that conveys all the state rights and benefits of marriage. The Legislature chose the second route, leading to the approval of civil unions in that state.

The Massachusetts decision made no mention of an alternative solution, but instead pointed to a recent decision in Ontario, Canada, that changed the common law definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and led to the issuance of marriage licenses there.

The state "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples," the court wrote. "Barred access to the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions."

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 Suffolk Superior Court judge threw out the case in 2002, ruling that nothing in state law gives gay couples the right to marry. The couples immediately appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which heard arguments in March.

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.

During the past decade, Massachusetts' high court has expanded the legal parameters of family, ruling that same-sex couples can adopt children and devising child visitation right for a former partner of a lesbian.

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country with at 1.3 percent of the total number of coupled households, according to the 2000 census. In California, 1.4 percent of the coupled households are occupied by same-sex partners. Vermont and New York also registered at 1.3 percent, while in Washington, D.C., the rate is 5.1 percent

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

Thankfully, the Courts are beginning to undo the injustices of the past and present. This is a wonderful ruling, and I applaud the Massachusetts Supreme Court for their unwillingness to let discrimination stand as law.

 

[angela146]

Yes, this means that the "Boston Marriage" will actually be legal in Boston!

 

[Pookie]

ACLU Cheers Massachusetts High Court Decision Confirming Marriage for Same-Sex Couples

February 4, 2004


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

BOSTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union today welcomed a decision by Massachusetts' highest court confirming that the state cannot deny same-sex couples the right to marry. The Massachusetts state senate had formally asked the court if it would be legal to keep same-sex couples from marrying if it created a system of "civil unions." The court said "no."

"Massachusetts's highest court has now made it clear that two people who fall in love and form a committed relationship should not be denied the right to protect their relationship through marriage just like any other couple," said Carol Rose, Executive Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts.

Today's decision reaffirms an earlier decision by the Massachusetts high court that same-sex couples are entitled to equal marriage rights under the state constitution's guarantees of due process and equal protection.

"The Court says that a 'civil union' system can never be really equal," explained Matt Coles, Director of the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. "If you give all couples the same state legal protections, the only possible explanation for saying same-sex couples are in a 'union' instead of a marriage is to say they are less worthy."

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14866&c=101

 

[College_geek]

I am so glad to hear this! I read in my school's newspaper a week or so ago something that had scared me. It was talking about Bush and the American Family Association (or whatever their name is), and them trying to prevent this from happening. The way it was written almost made it sound like they'd get away with it. Thank goodness for the MA supreme court. I hope that they don't change their way of thinking on this issue, no matter what anyone tries to make them think. They will make many people happy, and couple in the area, or even the country, won't have to move all the way to Canada. Hopefully this is just the first step to a much bigger plan in the long run. Here's to love and marriage being blind to gender.

 

[Bitchslapper]

I think that it is just a great decision and I hope that it continues. We constantly get our constitutional rights stomped on and most of us never even realize it. Hell, I can't even let the snow pile up in front of my house any longer. If I smoked, I couldn't go to a bar my friend owns and do that. Before long, there will be some damn law where I can't flip off bad drivers when I want.

Here is one decision that finally recognizes that equal... means equal.... by law.

Why you would even want to let snow pile up in front of your house is beyond me, but the anti-smoking law is obviously a safety issue, while smoking is hardly a constitutional right. And actually, it is technically illegal to flip people off. It's legally considered assault in most states, they just don't enforce it.

 

[College_geek]

And actually, it is technically illegal to flip people off. It's legally considered assault in most states, they just don't enforce it.

With all the people who flip each other off on a regular basis, I never would've assumed that. Yeesh.

(sorry for the off-topicness, by the way...just my gut reaction)

 

[Bitchslapper]

Well, people swear at others and make bodily threats too, but those are also considered assault.

 

[Pookie]

Ohio governor signs bill making state 38th to ban gay marriage

Saturday, February 7, 2004 Posted: 11:39 AM EST (1639 GMT)


COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Ohio Gov. Bob Taft approved one of the country's most-far reaching gay-marriage bans on Friday, saying its adoption was urgent because the nation's first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings could take place as early as this spring in Massachusetts.

The bill, which Taft signed in private, also prohibits state employees from getting marital benefits for their unmarried partners, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

Approving the bill to make gay marriages "against the strong public policy of the state" became more pressing after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled 4-3 this week that denial of marriage to same-sex couples as unconstitutional, Taft said. (The Massachusetts ruling)

"It is necessary for us to act now to safeguard Ohio's marriage laws," Taft said. "Ohio could have same-sex couples who were 'married' in Massachusetts taking legal action in Ohio to recognize that marriage and to obtain the resulting benefits."

When the law takes effect in 90 days, Ohio will become the 38th state to adopt a "defense of marriage act" and the second to deny benefits to some employees' partners.

Taft, a Republican, denied assertions that the law promotes intolerance. He said the new law would send a strong positive message to children and families.

"Marriage is an essential building block of our society, an institution we must reaffirm," he said.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/06/gay.marriage.ap/index.html

"Marriage is an essential building block of our society, an institution we must reaffirm"

Those opposed to same-sex marriages act as if the whole "institution of marriage" is going to crumble if two people of the same sex just happen to fall in love and exchange vows. They have to "defend" marriage from same-sex couples. They want to send "a strong positive message to children and families." Discrimination is a wonderful positive message to be teaching children at an early age.

 

[Pookie]

February 11, 2004
Americans Evenly Divided on Constitutional Marriage Amendment
Majority oppose same-sex marriage in principle

by Frank Newport


PRINCETON, NJ -- About 6 in 10 Americans oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage, although less than half support the idea of a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Republicans are more likely than independents or Democrats to favor such an amendment. At this point in time, same-sex marriage is not high on the list of issues voters will use to make up their minds when choosing a presidential candidate, although that may change when same-sex marriage becomes legal in Massachusetts in mid-May.

Background

There has been a good deal of discussion this year about the potential impact of the same-sex marriage issue on the presidential election.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has essentially ruled that Massachusetts cannot bar same-sex couples from getting legally married. Despite efforts by the Massachusetts governor and state legislature to intervene, most observers conclude that there will be a wave of highly publicized same-sex marriages taking place in Massachusetts after May 17, when the state will be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they request them. The issue could become even more complex if same-sex couples who are legally married in Massachusetts return to their home states and request that their marriages be officially recognized.

President George W. Bush has clearly stated his opposition to same-sex marriage, and it is quite possible that he will publicly endorse a constitutional amendment that would restrict marriage to a man and a woman. At the same time, Democratic front-runner John Kerry is a senator from Massachusetts, and was 1 of 14 senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 during the Clinton administration. Kerry has now publicly stated that he is opposed to gay marriage, but it is highly unlikely that he would favor a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to only a man and a woman.

It has not been lost on Bush re-election strategists that the Democratic convention this summer will take place in Boston -- no doubt opening up further opportunities for Republican strategists to attempt to associate Kerry, if he is the nominee, with that state's liberal same-sex marriage policy.

All in all, it is likely that the issue could be a central way in which Bush's re-election strategists attempt to differentiate his conservative positioning from that of current front-runner Kerry, assuming that Kerry gets the nomination.

Majority Opposes Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

There is no question that the majority of the American public opposes the legalization of same-sex marriage in principle. This past weekend's Gallup Poll updated a basic measure of Americans' attitudes on this issue, with the following results:

Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?


-Should be valid %
-Should not be valid %
-No opinion %

2004 Feb 6-8 ^
36
59
5


2003 Dec 15-16
31
65
4

2003 Oct 24-26
35
61
4

2003 Jun 27-29
39
55
6

2000 Jan 13-16
34
62
4

1999 Feb 8-9
35
62
3

1996 Mar 15-17
27
68
5

^
Asked of a half sample.

There has been only minimal variation in responses to this question over the last eight years, with opposition ranging from a high point of 68% in 1996, to a low point of 55% in June of this past year.

A TIME/CNN poll conducted Feb. 5-6 found essentially the same results, with 62% of Americans agreeing that "marriages between homosexual men or between homosexual women" should not be recognized as legal.

Attitudes toward gay and lesbian issues are strongly related to age. In this past weekend's Gallup Poll, 47% of Americans aged 18 to 49 say that same-sex marriages should be legally valid, compared with only 21% of those over 50.

There are partisan differences in the expected direction on this issue, but they are perhaps not as strong as would be supposed: 22% of Republicans say that same-sex marriages should be valid, compared with 44% of independents and 40% of Democrats. In short, even among Democrats, a majority opposes the legalization of gay marriage.

Constitutional Amendment?

Still, basic opposition to the concept of same-sex marriage is different from a desire to see the U.S. Constitution amended to prohibit it. Indeed, some Americans who oppose same-sex marriage in principle are apparently reluctant to push for the dramatic step of amending the Constitution as a way of addressing the issue.

Gallup's Feb. 6-8 poll shows a 12-point difference between the percentage of Americans who oppose same-sex marriage in general, and the percentage favoring a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being only between a man and a woman (thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples).

Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples?

-Favor
-Oppose
-No opinion


2004 Feb 6-8 ^
47%
47
6


2003 Jul 18-20
50%
45
5

^
Asked of a half sample.

In other words, 59% say that same-sex marriage should not be legal, while only 47% favor a constitutional amendment to that effect.

Several other polling organizations in recent weeks have asked about a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman, and all show the same basic split.

- In the aforementioned TIME/CNN poll, 47% favor a constitutional amendment.

- An ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 58% of Americans agreed that each state should "make its own laws on homosexual marriage," while only 38% supported the idea of "amending the U.S. Constitution to make it illegal for homosexual couples to get married anywhere in the U.S."

Support for a constitutional amendment is split along partisan lines. Sixty-three percent of Republicans favor it, compared with 44% of independents and 36% of Democrats. Looked at differently, 60% of those who in the Feb. 6-8 poll said they would vote for Bush in a Bush-Kerry matchup support the amendment, compared with only 35% of those who said they would vote for Kerry.

How Important Will This Be as an Issue in the Presidential Campaign?

Some observers assume that the candidates' positions on this type of amendment will be a major litmus test used during the campaign. But every indicator in our polling over the years suggests that in the broadest sense, gay and lesbian issues are not highly salient to voters. Indeed, the weekend Gallup Poll included "same-sex marriage" in a list of 14 issues that respondents were asked to rate in terms of how important they would be in influencing their vote for president. Same-sex marriage was dead last in that list.

Bottom Line

All in all, the issue of same-sex marriage is not one that is viewed as highly important at this point in time. Still, issues that do not initially appear to be important sometimes have a way of becoming symbolically significant in an election. In a close race, relatively minor issues can become the ones that sway enough voters to make a significant difference.

That type of scenario certainly may be possible this year in relation to same-sex marriage. The Bush campaign conceivably could be successful enough in using same-sex marriage as an indicator of Kerry's liberalism to sway some swing voters to vote Republican. At the same time, it is also possible that some more liberally oriented swing voters could be affected negatively if Bush is associated with more right-wing efforts to amend the Constitution to prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying.

More generally, if the issue does become a hotly debated one in the coming campaign, it would appear that a candidate's position that in some way registers opposition to the basic concept of same-sex marriage would be most effective in terms of appealing to the largest number of voters.

Source: http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=10585

To summarize, a majority of the population (especially older citizens) are opposed to same-sex marriage (59%). But those polled are evenly split at 47% when it comes to a favoring a constitutional amendment to stop same-sex marriages.

Will the issue over the this election year be whether or not to allow same-sex marriages, or whether it's wise to amend the US Constitution to stop same-sex marriages? In all likelihood, it won't become a major issue in the upcoming election, IMO.

 

[Pookie]

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0307/same.sex.marriages/same.sex.marriage.new.gif

 

[Etoile]

Hey, thanks for posting that graphic, Pookie. It's a great summarization of the status of DOMAs and same-sex marriage rules.

 

[Pookie]

Hey, thanks for posting that graphic, Pookie. It's a great summarization of the status of DOMAs and same-sex marriage rules.

You're welcome. I thought it was a great graphic when I saw it.

 

[Pookie]

Massachusetts lawmakers recess without gay marriage ban
Legislature to try again next month

Friday, February 13, 2004 Posted: 2:18 AM EST (0718 GMT)


BOSTON, Massachusetts (CNN) -- A joint session of the Massachusetts Legislature recessed at midnight, failing to craft a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.

The Massachusetts Constitutional Convention will reconvene March 11 to try again.

The recess came after the Legislature voted down a third attempt in two days to produce an amendment.

The 103-96 vote came as the lawmakers were well into their second day of passionate debate and behind-the-scenes negotiating -- attempts to hammer out a compromise on whether the state will recognize same-sex couples and which rights it will allow them.

Thursday's session, which began at noon, continued until the stroke of midnight in the State House on historic Beacon Hill, where crowds of protesters -- many of them shouting "Equal Rights!" -- demonstrated in support of same-sex marriages.

Lawmakers earlier in the day narrowly rejected a compromise proposal that sought to legalize civil unions but ban gay marriage. A similar amendment was rejected Wednesday. As married couples, same-sex partners would have more rights than in "civil unions."

The constitutional convention began a week after the state's highest court said gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry in the state.

Adding fuel to the fire, San Francisco's county clerk began issuing same-sex marriage licenses Thursday, despite the fact that gay marriages are illegal in California.

The first couple to be married: Phyllis Lyon, 80, and Dorothy Martin, 83, who have been together for 51 years.

During Thursday's session in Massachusetts, State Rep. Shaun P. Kelly filed a motion to adjourn the session, which would essentially allow the Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriages to stand. However, legislators voted 153-44 not to adjourn the session.

State Sen. Jarrett T. Barrios, an openly gay lawmaker, pleaded against the proposed amendment.

"I am the first person to speak on this amendment who is directly affected by it, I'll admit it," Barrios said, adding that his partner of more than 10 years and his two adopted children would be denied health benefits if the amendment were enacted.

Another legislator, Rep. Elizabeth Malia, spoke about her partner of 30 years.

"The most difficult part of this whole debate is people being able to understand and identify who we are," she said.

During the first session, an estimated 3,700 people -- lobbyists and protesters, young and old, gays and straights -- crammed into the State House, lining the lobby, stairwells and just about anywhere there was room. Hundreds more gathered outside the 200-year-old building, chanting slogans and waving signs.

State Rep. Philip Travis, a Democratic sponsor of the amendment to ban gay marriage, said the union of one man and one woman "will be protected in Massachusetts."

He added that he hopes Massachusetts will not be "the first state in the union to endorse gay marriage by legislation."

State Sen. Harriett Chandler told lawmakers: "I urge my colleagues to stand with me against discrimination today and to oppose this attempt to amend our constitution."

Court set November deadline
Any amendment to change the state constitution would have to be ratified by both houses of the Legislature in two successive legislative sessions. Then the voters would have to approve it.

The earliest a constitutional amendment vote could be held would be November 2006. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ordered the Legislature to allow gays to marry by this May.

Last week's ruling was in response to a question from the state Senate on whether civil unions for gay couples would be sufficient to meet the court's 4-3 November decision that gays and lesbians cannot be forbidden from joining in civil marriages under the Massachusetts Constitution.

Civil unions grant couples most of the rights of state civil marriages but provide none of the federal benefits of marriage such as Social Security.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/mass.marriage/index.html