Massachusetts SJC rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

[RowansDad]

Story here:

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/18/gay_marriage.htm

On the hunt for the Court's decision.

[pie]

gay marriage is cool.

[RowansDad]

SJC's decision here:

http://www.masslaw.com/archives/ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm

[Meiri]

And if the ban is unconstitutional, then thatmeans any new law to enforce such a ban or to encode that only certain persons may marry would be unconstitutional too.

[Marlena]

Sure...unless Finneran's plan to amend the Mass. constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman succeeds - as such amendements succeeded in Hawaii and Alaska following similar court rulings.

I've been out of Mass. politics for almost five years now, so I don't have any guess regarding the likelihood of the proposed amendment's success.

RD, what do you think will happen? Constitutional ban, or some form of legalization a la VT, or something else?

[RowansDad]

Marlena:

Dunno. Too soon to tell. Also, haven't had time to read the decision.

A constitutional amendment would take too long (2 - 3 years) methinks. The SJC has ordered the Legislature to come up with a solution within **180** days.

Note, however, that the Legislature here has a recent history of NOT respecting SJC's directives. Most recently, the legisilative branch ignored the Court's directive to fund the late Clean Election Law: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0506/p02s01-uspo.html.

Also, Gov. Mitt Romney has denounced the decision and said he would support efforts to change the Commonwealth's constitution.

Finally, remember, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (signed into law by Bubba, NOT Dubya) may cause a clash with the federal constitution's "full faith and credit" clause re other states recognizing the the possible gay unions under the Commonwealth's law, and will likely lead to a showdown in U.S. Supreme Court.

[Marlena]

Re full faith & credit, US states have a long history of not respecting other state's actions with respect to marriage and divorce, when it suits their purposes (eg, Nevada divorces being recognized in other states in the mid-20th century). I'm not sure that the [so-called] DMA would significantly add anything new (but I've not considered the issue in over seven years, either, so could be wrong).

It'll be interesting to see what'll happen.

Who's leading the Senate now? - is it still Montigny? I'm wondering if times haven't changed all that much. Wouldn't surprise me.

[RowansDad]

Originally posted by Marlena
Who's leading the Senate now? - is it still Montigny? I'm wondering if times haven't changed all that much. Wouldn't surprise me.

President of the Senate is Robert Travaglini after long time prez Tom Birmingham ran for governor last year. Travaglini supports civil unions for same sex couples (ala VT.) but does not support marriage. I'm under the impression that the SJC does NOT leave much wiggle room for the legislature to go the civil union route.

My issue with this decision is that it comes at a perfect time for Dubya and Karl Rove to latch onto a wedge issue that could keep this crew in the White House come 2004. Especially if Dean is the Democratic candidate. The chances of this decision being a pyrrhic victory for progressives are substantial.

[Marlena]

My issue with this decision is that it comes at a perfect time for Dubya and Karl Rove to latch onto a wedge issue that could keep this crew in the White House come 2004. Especially if Dean is the Democratic candidate. The chances of this decision being a pyrrhic victory for progressives are substantial.

This is an excellent point...and very worrisome.

[dentente]

Gosh. Just call it "Civil Union" or whatever you need to call it and let these people have some rights. I cannot imagine living with and loving someone for 20 years and then being kept out of their hospital room as they lay dying just because the law says only marrieds and relatives. I am glad, glad, glad Gay people are starting to get treated like the human beings they are and always have been.

Denny

[merpk]

A question: What is the difference between "marriage" and "civil union"?

[RowansDad]

Amy

Here's GLAD's position on that question:
http://www.glad.org/Publications/Civ...arriagevcu.PDF

Pertinent story on Vt. and Mass. situations:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...r_to_vermonts/

[SpiralWoman]

Especially if Dean is the Democratic candidate. The chances of this decision being a pyrrhic victory for progressives are substantial.

I think we will find that, as a culture, the words Marriage & Union are synonymous. For those that oppose the very idea of GLBT partnership, it matters little that Gov Dean has legalized unions rather than marriage.

Media coverage of this issue hinges on "same sex" like a Jerry Springer episode. Minor word play such as "civil" & "union" will likely not enter the fray. Will this election cycle be a referendum on GLBT rights? The neo-cons certainly hope so, but I wonder if the silent majority will decide to speak out. Regardless of how Dean phrases it, I think he has a chance to frame this issue in a way that makes sense to average straight people.

[RowansDad]

Originally posted by SpiralWoman
Regardless of how Dean phrases it, I think he has a chance to frame this issue in a way that makes sense to average straight people.

That's gonna be a very tought road to hoe:

"A poll of 1,515 Americans, conducted Oct. 15 through Oct. 19 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, and released on Tuesday, found that 59 percent of respondents opposed gay marriage."

From http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/19/po...19ASSE.html?hp

[dado]

59% of Americans can't even name the president. i have faith MA will do the right thing: make a show of opposing the decision by looking like they're walking down the const ammend route, everybody saves electoral-face, and marriage-for-all stands.

Originally posted by RowansDad
That's gonna be a very tought road to hoe:

"A poll of 1,515 Americans, conducted Oct. 15 through Oct. 19 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, and released on Tuesday, found that 59 percent of respondents opposed gay marriage."

From http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/19/po...19ASSE.html?hp

[captain optimism]

just want to post the part of the decision...

that made me cry. YMMV.

The department has offered no evidence that forbidding marriage to people of the same sex will increase the number of couples choosing to enter into opposite-sex marriages in order to have and raise children. There is thus no rational relationship between the marriage statute and the Commonwealth's proffered goal of protecting the "optimal" child rearing unit. Moreover, the department readily concedes that people in same-sex couples may be "excellent" parents. These couples (including four of the plaintiff couples) have children for the reasons others do -- to love them, to care for them, to nurture them. But the task of child rearing for same-sex couples is made infinitely harder by their status as outliers to the marriage laws.

Unfortunately, it should probaby say "These couples...have children for the reasons we hope others do." Of course we also hope that heterosexual couples marry as "a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family." But that is precisely what mountain this decision is moving. The definition of marriage and family--defined by affinity and mutuality, not by ownership.

I live in Massachusetts and I'm so happy that I do.

[cumulus]

Gays should certainly have the legal rights of a union that breeders do but when looking at this all from its effect on the nation's children in general it causes me to be concerned. In the past marriage used to be nearly synonymous with having children. Nowadays quite a few heterosexual couples decide not to have children tending to redefine the social meaning of marriage away from children as the focus towards finances and legalities as the focus. Including another set of people for whom children are not integral to their union further moves marriage, as a social construct, away from children. In this country in 1880 nearly 70% of all adults lived in households with children. One hundred years later in 1990, little more than 35% were sharing a home with a child. I would have it that all people raising children would have a special social and legal status and all couples without children have the same legal status. We're all here because of that set of human beings who had children. Parenting is not just your average contribution to society and country; it creates society. Let whoever get married but let's protect our most precious and vulnerable souls by giving their protectors all the perks possible.

"Perhaps the greatest social service that can be rendered by anybody to the country and to mankind is to bring up a family."

~ George Bernard Shaw

[dentente]

Man. What ARE you smoking? If you make the benefit of marriage solely for those who reproduce then people will reproduce just for the perks and not because they choose to. This way lies madness and many children born for the wrong reasons into abusive environments!

There are two types of marriage. The legal type, conferring special status to the marrieds such as taxes, communal property, the right to make medical decisions for each other, etc. And then the religious type of marriage that is defined differently among the various belief-systems.

Our country is able to see marriage these two different ways when it applies to heteros but NOT when it applies to homosexuals because we are confusing the two types of marriage on a legislative level. If modern Christianity is not able to encompass marriage between same sex individuals that is it's own look-out. But what right does the government have to impose religious views upon it's citizens? By interpreting the union of marriage from a religious standpoint only, we do a great disservice to the notion of separation of church and state. Let same sex couples who are committed to each other enjoy the benefits of being married, stable contributors to the tax base. Let them enjoy the same rights as hetero citizens. If using the term "civil union" is a stepping stone to making this happen then so be it. It is going forward. I think to hang on the semantics of the word "marriage" is to prolong this struggle needlessly. If these civil unions become the norm, how far off can same-sex "marriage" be? I just want to see it move forward into reality. I have gay friends who want to married legally with all of their hearts.

Denny

[Els' 3 Ones]

But what right does the government have to impose religious views upon it's citizens? By interpreting the union of marriage from a religious standpoint only, we do a great disservice to the notion of separation of church and state

And if RD's fear is realized this should be what the progressives focus on. If ever there was a loss of that line of sepeaation, this is where it is. The very fact that it is debated and acted against (ammendments barring same sex unions) amazes me.

Two consenting adults should be able to obtain the same legal protections as any other two consenting adults. Period.



I hold out great hope still that there is a huge silent majority, and putting forth this type of intolerance by the Repub campaign would finally bring them out. This would be a campaign against love, commitment and family and I think many would feel that is too close to home for them.


El

[dentente]

I look to Bush's own language in speaking out against this latest development.

"I will defend the sanctity of marriage".

Now how confused is he about the separation of Church and State?

Webster's defines sanctity as the quality or state of being holy or sacred.

: