Massachusetts backs gay marriage

The US state of Massachusetts has ruled that same-sex couples are legally entitled to marry.
Massachusetts could become the first state to recognise gay marriage.

But the Supreme Judicial Court stopped short of ordering that marriage licences be issued to seven gay couples who challenged the law.

Gay marriage is banned in the US, but one state, Vermont, has enacted a law which gives same-sex couples the rights of traditional marriages.

The Massachusetts court ruled that barring same-sex couples from the benefits of civil marriage was "unconstitutional."

"Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support. It brings stability to our society," Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote in the long-awaited ruling.

The 4-3 ruling means the issue will now return to the state legislature, which has 180 days to come up with a solution.

The issue came to court as the result of a lawsuit filed in 2001 by seven gay couples who sued the Massachusetts Department of Public Health after they were refused marriage licenses.

Court battle

Courts in Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont have also previously ruled that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, but no state has yet issued marriage licences to gay couples.

In Hawaii and Alaska, the rulings were followed by the adoption of constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

In 2000, Vermont's state legislature approved civil unions for same-sex couples, giving them many of the same legal benefits of married couples.

Conservative groups and politicians opposed to homosexuality have been pressing for a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages outright.

The bill, which has 96 sponsors in the House of Representatives, seeks to enshrine marriage as a union exclusively between one man and one woman, and would make same-sex unions a legal impossibility.

President George Bush does not believe in gay marriage, but said recently that a constitutional amendment was not yet necessary.

Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court overturned a ban on sodomy in Texas, essentially making it illegal for any state legislature to outlaw gay sex.

In November, the country's first openly gay bishop was formally consecrated in New Hampshire.

Bishop Gene Robinson has a long-term male partner, and his appointment has divided the Anglican Communion worldwide.

Gay marriages are legal in neighbouring Canada, as well as in Belgium and the Netherlands.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3281017.stm

No wonder we haven't heard from resident Neo-Nazi Billy Blight.

He's been planning a a big gaaaaaaay ... err happy wedding

Once again liberal judges making law out of whole cloth.
Now if a man declares his dog to be a child and sues the state because he does not have the same benifits as other child parent relationships...Will the law be changed...in Mass. probably.
Marriage by defintion of about 10 different relgions and about 5000 years = man & woman.
But once again the judges rule what they feel and not what is reality,by bypassing the rule of law.And opposing the will of the people.

The lesson here is the only possible way the democrats can have their liberal agenda is to control the judiciary...This is why they are deathly afraid of Bush's judiciary appointments.Without liberal judges,the democrats and their liberal agenda are extinct.Because the will of the people is 180 degrees contrary to what the libs are pushing.

Statement of J. Edward Pawlick, Attorney for Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage
- November 18, 2003

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has now joined the Legislature and Governor Jane Swift in violating Massachusetts law. They have all refused to follow the state Constitution and allow the voters to decide gay marriage at the ballot box even though 130,000 people signed a petition to do so and all the necessary requirements were followed.


The Supreme Judicial Court told former Gov. Swift in an opinion on Dec. 20, 2002 that the Constitution had been violated by the Legislature and that she must act before Dec. 31, 2002, to see that a vote was held.


Now the SJC is joining in the illegal action.


I personally appeared before the SJC four times since October 2002 (twice before a Single Justice and twice before the full court) to counsel them on this matter and to warn that if they go against the will of the people, it could change our whole political structure in the state.


Today's decision is our answer because if they allowed the people to vote, they could not do what the Court is doing today. And of course, the Court understands that.


This all means that the foundation of our society has been decided by seven people -- all of them lawyers. That is sad. The overarching question they had to decide was who would make that momentous decision, the citizens or the lawyers?


The arrogance of these lawyers is without bounds. They know that the citizens are against gay marriage and the only way it will happen is to force it upon them.


We are witnessing the collapse of a once-great society, not from an invading army but from decay within.


The Chief Justice, Margaret Marshall, first came to this country from her native South Africa at age 24 and later made an alliance with the owners of The New York Times Company (the Sulzberger family where five members own all of that company's voting stock) by marrying its premiere columnist and family friend, Anthony Lewis. The Times Company had its subsidiary, the Boston Globe, push for Marshall's appointment without ever revealing its own conflict of interest. Now we see more of the results of the New York Times/Boston Globe power.


How the people react will be seen. But their outrage will be muted by the immense power of the five family-owners of The New York Times Company.


We have become a lawless society.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>blah blah blah blah blah....
blah blah blah
....We have become a lawless society.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Christ, why can't these poor people just get married? I don't even see the benefit in Republicans fighting this one out. Aren't they supposed to stand for "keeping the goddamn gov't out of my goddamn business"?


Ok, so I understand there is a biblical backing for all of this. I'm Jewish when I bother with religion, so I only have a knowledge of the Old Testament. Perhaps someone can help me out with this, and it would at least help me see the Christian point of view.

The "homosexuality is an abomination" thing is in Leviticus. I'm not denying that. So is the "don't eat pork" thing, and the "don't spill you seed on the ground" thing.

Is there actually a part in the New Testament (maybe there is?) where Jesus says "Hey, forget about the pork and the masturbation, but being homosexual is still really, really, evil?" Or are people just picking and choosing which biblical laws they feel like believing?

If Jesus really said something like that, then at least I can understand where these anti-gay people are coming from, but if he didn't, guys, Its time to throw that one out with the Pepperoni Pizza.

I seem to recall that Jesus didn't have any respect for rich dudes, but I don't remember him having a problem with gays.

Mas. state constitutional law says that marriage is betwwen a man and woman period not a man and a horse or any thing else.

By the way this has nothing to do with homosexuality.

If Massachusetts wants to let homos marry I say more power to them! Vermont as well. Howard Dean ought to put Barney Frank on his ticket. I can't think of a finer duo to represent the Democratic Party.


VVV

eek,

Homosexuality was grounds for being beheaded, see Levitcus 20:13

Funk,

Romans 1 also talks about homosexuality being wrong

Who cares? The Bible does not and should not make our laws. And no court will allow marriage or civil unions to be anything that doesn't involve two HUMANS. No you will never marry a horse moron. This is something two humans choose to do, whether their sexual interests are the same as yours or mine, why should that matter? In this world getting two people to commit to each other and share their lives together ought to be encouraged, not threatened.

I care and the country should care, if the Bible doesnt run America, America will be destroyed. I feel much more comfortable with Christ centered judges.

Railbird,

I find you're last comment on this post un-American.
One of the founding principles of the U.S. was freedom from religious persecution.
You come off as someone that would glady persecute anyone with different religious beliefs than yours.
I sincerely hope that you are never in any position of authority.