Gay marriage legal in Massachusetts

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Doboji
I think it's about frigging time... consenting adults should be able to enter into the binding legal marriage contract regardless of sex, race or creed.

-Max
You forgot orientation;)
 

Wag

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
8,286
4
81
I have heard it was a narrow margin something like 3-4. So basically one person decided for an entire state, or depending if other states are forced to recognize a gay marriage, an entire country what is right and wrong. I would think that something of this magnitude, would have been put to the people of that state to vote on. just my opinion.
That sounds vaguely <cough! 2000 Election cough!> familiar...

Is it up to the public to intepret law?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Wheezer
I have heard it was a narrow margin something like 3-4. So basically one person decided for an entire state, or depending if other states are forced to recognize a gay marriage, an entire country what is right and wrong. I would think that something of this magnitude, would have been put to the people of that state to vote on. just my opinion.
Where were you in Nov-Dec 2000?!?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
To you Monkeywaggers - the people did get to vote in 2000. And under the laws they cast their vote under - the decision was made by them. I don't think we need to clutter this thread up with 2000 election nonsense.

DM - any comment on the D of M A?

CkG
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
To you Monkeywaggers - the people did get to vote in 2000. And under the laws they cast their vote under - the decision was made by them. I don't think we need to clutter this thread up with 2000 election nonsense.

DM - any comment on the D of M A?

CkG
Hmmmm, maybe you're right. I guess I wasn't very familiar with the DoMA. Oh well, I guess States can still make up their own minds as to how to handle the "marriage" issue. In a way, I'm really surprised Clinton signed that bill. Weird.
 

ClueLis

Platinum Member
Jul 2, 2003
2,269
0
0
Originally posted by: Spencer278
It is not, the marriages will not be valid in other states. When vermont first had civial unions people from other states would come to vermont to get married and then leave. The people that did that can not get a devorce because to file for devorce in vermont you must be a resident and other states don't recogizes the people as married.
Marriages are required to be respected in other states (and other countries, for that matter). Civil unions, however, such as what Vermont has, are not necessarily upheld in other states. The "portability" of the union will depend on which route Massachusetts takes on this issue.
 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,731
1
81
Originally posted by: Wag
I have heard it was a narrow margin something like 3-4. So basically one person decided for an entire state, or depending if other states are forced to recognize a gay marriage, an entire country what is right and wrong. I would think that something of this magnitude, would have been put to the people of that state to vote on. just my opinion.
That sounds vaguely <cough! 2000 Election cough!> familiar...

Is it up to the public to intepret law?
well if you remember there was an <cough>election in 2000<cough> to begin with. I think even you can agree that if the margin had not been as close as it was you would not even bring that point in on this, because that whole thing would not have happened in the first place.

this was not even put to a vote, and I HIGHLY doubt that it would be as close a vote as the 2000 election.



Where were you in Nov-Dec 2000?!?
Umm I was able cast my vote. The people of Mass. never even had a choice to begin with.
 

Wag

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
8,286
4
81
Why would this need to be put to a vote? It is not up to the public to interpret law. Neither is it up to the public to create new laws or ratify them.

Here in Mass they have a habit of having the voters decide on "Propositions", which is useless because the state senate always stops them if they don't like it.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
No Cad, it's a constitutional requirement that states must recognize legal contracts in other states.
Actually, I heard two egghead law professors on NPR this evening discussing the MA decision. Apparently it's possible for states to claim some kind of weird arse exception if another state's laws are a dramatic depature from local practice.

The Defense of Marriage Act was pure BS. IMHO, Clinton wouldn't have signed it if he hadn't been running for re-election. I'm still waiting for one of these "stick up the rectum" defenders of marriage to explain why gays have them cowering in fear.
 

Aves

Lifer
Feb 7, 2001
12,228
25
101
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
No Cad, it's a constitutional requirement that states must recognize legal contracts in other states.
Actually, I heard two egghead law professors on NPR this evening discussing the MA decision. Apparently it's possible for states to claim some kind of weird arse exception if another state's laws are a dramatic depature from local practice.
I'm actually listening to those two right now.

Link to the audio.
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
Originally posted by: Doboji
I think it's about frigging time... consenting adults should be able to enter into the binding legal marriage contract regardless of sex, race or creed.

-Max
preach on!
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
No Cad, it's a constitutional requirement that states must recognize legal contracts in other states.
Actually, I heard two egghead law professors on NPR this evening discussing the MA decision. Apparently it's possible for states to claim some kind of weird arse exception if another state's laws are a dramatic depature from local practice.

The Defense of Marriage Act was pure BS. IMHO, Clinton wouldn't have signed it if he hadn't been running for re-election. I'm still waiting for one of these "stick up the rectum" defenders of marriage to explain why gays have them cowering in fear.
Why is defending marriage now a "bad thing"? There are a lot of arguments about being gay being genetic versus environment. It's probably a mix of both. There's some strong correlations between being molested/raped and becoming gay (a family I know had 4 kids...2 were molested, 2 weren't. The two that were molested became gay. One of the two is a pedophile, might be in jail dunno he vanished).

If they are married, I just want them to have to pay the marriage tax penalty like the rest of us. And quit having parades :)

 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Gay marriage legal in Massachusetts
Given the current status quo i agree with the decision. If the government has the authority to grant permission to marry and perform marriage ceremonies, then it can't discriminate in who it provides this "service" to.

And i'm surprised no one has come up with the most obvious solution to the "problem." Get the damn government out of the marriage business. It's a religious concept to begin with that has been bastardized by the gov't being involved. I no more want the state of MA granting marriage licenses than i want them granting baptism or bah mitzvah licenses.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
When is someone going to bring up if this opens the door for Polygamy and Beastiality next?

Oh...I just did ;)

Although the libertarian in me says "go for it". PETA would object.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
When is someone going to bring up if this opens the door for Polygamy and Beastiality next?

Oh...I just did ;)

Although the libertarian in me says "go for it". PETA would object.
Are you Rick Santorum's bastard child? I knew it! :p
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Originally posted by: alchemize
When is someone going to bring up if this opens the door for Polygamy and Beastiality next?

Oh...I just did ;)

Although the libertarian in me says "go for it". PETA would object.
Isn't Polygamy already legal in Utah, a ultra-conservative state?
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: ClueLis
Originally posted by: Spencer278
It is not, the marriages will not be valid in other states. When vermont first had civial unions people from other states would come to vermont to get married and then leave. The people that did that can not get a devorce because to file for devorce in vermont you must be a resident and other states don't recogizes the people as married.
Marriages are required to be respected in other states (and other countries, for that matter). Civil unions, however, such as what Vermont has, are not necessarily upheld in other states. The "portability" of the union will depend on which route Massachusetts takes on this issue.

A state only has to respect the laws of other states if they have a similar law. The name of the law is irrelavent. Do you really think that one state should be allowed to say who can get married and have it apply to all the other states. I wonder if there are any similar case in which a person is married below in one state but is below the legal age to marry in the person home state if the state would respect that marrage.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Originally posted by: alchemize
When is someone going to bring up if this opens the door for Polygamy and Beastiality next?

Oh...I just did ;)

Although the libertarian in me says "go for it". PETA would object.
Isn't Polygamy already legal in Utah, a ultra-conservative state?
No it's illegal, they just normally turn the other cheek.

There is a case recently where a guy was charged for having 8 wives. He got too high in Media spotlight so they came down hard on him.


 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
please change the thread title it is wrong!

it is not legal yet. 180 days the legilature have to make it a law or to oppose it.

also the governor is against it.

on poligomy
No it's illegal, they just normally turn the other cheek.

There is a case recently where a guy was charged for having 8 wives. He got too high in Media spotlight so they came down hard on him.
cause the guy was on springer show so they made him an example btw he was an a$shole.
 

PainTrain

Member
Jun 22, 2003
170
2
0
I know this has already been asked, but what business is it of ours to dictate whether or not two consenting adults can be married? For it to be such a huge, rifting concern you people must walk around all day thinking about gay this and gay that. Are the gay's trying to take Charelton Heston's winchester out of his cold dead hands? Perhaps they killed Dale Earnhardt? I know, manufacturing lost their jobs to a bunch of overqualified gay Indians. Big f#ckin deal, get over it.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
There's some strong correlations between being molested/raped and becoming gay (a family I know had 4 kids...2 were molested, 2 weren't. The two that were molested became gay. One of the two is a pedophile, might be in jail dunno he vanished).
thats some awesome anecdotal evidence you have there. hitler, jeffery dahmer, and binladin all ate carrots, and look what they turned into!

kinda harder to attack homosexualty as a deviant and by default sexually promiscuous lifestyle when they are going for marriage. i bet some don't like having that route of attack taken from them.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY