Massachusetts Court: Gay Civil Unions Not Enough

[conjur]

BOSTON (Reuters) - Massachusetts' highest court on Wednesday upheld its landmark ruling made last year by saying that only marriages for gay couples and not civil unions were valid under the constitution.

In response to a request from lawmakers to evaluate proposed legislation that would allow civil unions -- essentially a parallel form of marriage for gays and lesbians -- the Massachusetts Supreme Court delivered a flat "no."

"The bill maintains an unconstitutional, inferior and discriminatory status for same-sex couples," the court said in an opinion

 

[ClueLis]

I figured this would be the case, as the ruling was quite explicit about marriage being the only means of providing equal rights.

 

[preCRT]

I think it would be very nice if Mitt is invited and attends some of the weddings 😀




BOSTON -- The Massachusetts high court ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples -- rather than civil unions -- would meet the edict of its November decision, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages would take place in the state beginning in mid-May.

"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. "The (civil unions) bill maintains an unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."

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

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...

story

 

[conjur]

Statement from the White House:

President's Statement on Massachusetts' Court Ruling
Statement by the President



February 4, 2004

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today's ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: conjur
Statement from the White House:

President's Statement on Massachusetts' Court Ruling
Statement by the President



February 4, 2004

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today's ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.

You'd think the Dub would have more important things to deal with like the poblem of Steroids in Pro Sports LOL 🙂

 

[stormbv]

If homosexuality was unnatural then homosexuality would never have existed.

God, please deal with Bush and his minions, they are Evil in its purest form. Thanks!

 

[GoodRevrnd]

I see no real legal reason to call it marriage. Rewrite all the laws so it's called civil union for EVERYONE, and rule that the same benefits extend to EVERYONE. Marriage is a sacred union, but I see no reason for the law to view it as such. Sanctity preserved, gays get what they really want (joint health insurance and taxes :roll😉, and religion is further removed from government. And no, I'm not being sarcastic, I really think this is the best answer (although I'd like to remove all benefits/penalties from union).

 

[Insane3D]

Originally spoken by : GWB

Today's ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.

OMG!! constitutional crisis!!! We MUST act now!!! Teh gays are coming! Teh gays are coming!! And now they're married!!!!

OMG!!! OH NO! AIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!! NOOOOOO!O!OO!O!!!!

😉

 

[Nitemare]

How is the Church lobbying to impose their moral beliefs = Separation of Religion and State?


Bout time somebody said something, getting tired of them dictating their ways of life as the law.

Surprises the hell out of me that this was introduced in New England rather than California or Oregon though

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: stormbv
If homosexuality was unnatural then homosexuality would never have existed.

God, please deal with Bush and his minions, they are Evil in its purest form. Thanks!

You have flawed logic sir. Just because it exists does not mean its natural.

 

[LinuxIdiot]

I don't agree with the lifestyle but find it unfair that if you like the opposite sex you get the rights to be called "married" if you like same sex you get civil union and none of the benefits from a monogamous relationship wtf is up with that reminds me of Separate of Equal on a sexual footing 0_O

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: stormbv
If homosexuality was unnatural then homosexuality would never have existed.

God, please deal with Bush and his minions, they are Evil in its purest form. Thanks!

You have flawed logic sir. Just because it exists does not mean its natural.

No, *you* have the flawed logic.

Homosexuality exists not only in humans but in many other species, too. It's a naturally occurring aspect of life on this planet. It's not the fault of homosexuals that many people in this country are too narrow-minded to see past the Bible.

 

[BatmanNate]

I don't see why Taxachussetts wouldn't be all over this, gay marriage means more taxes for the state. 😉

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: LinuxIdiot
I don't agree with the lifestyle but find it unfair that if you like the opposite sex you get the rights to be called "married" if you like same sex you get civil union and none of the benefits from a monogamous relationship wtf is up with that reminds me of Separate of Equal on a sexual footing 0_O

yup, exactly. that was part of the thinking of the state supreme court... iirc they basically noted that 'separate but equal' can not really be equal.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: stormbv
If homosexuality was unnatural then homosexuality would never have existed.

God, please deal with Bush and his minions, they are Evil in its purest form. Thanks!

You have flawed logic sir. Just because it exists does not mean its natural.

i suppose it depends on what you consider natural.

 

[NightCrawler]

Truthfully find that men and women have made a mockery of marriage all there own.

 

[AlienCraft]

I support Gay Marriage. Let them be miserable like the rest of us. 😉 😀

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: stormbv
If homosexuality was unnatural then homosexuality would never have existed.

God, please deal with Bush and his minions, they are Evil in its purest form. Thanks!

You have flawed logic sir. Just because it exists does not mean its natural.

No, *you* have the flawed logic.

Homosexuality exists not only in humans but in many other species, too. It's a naturally occurring aspect of life on this planet. It's not the fault of homosexuals that many people in this country are too narrow-minded to see past the Bible.

Other animals also eat their own crap. Should we start doing that? Other animals kill the young of others, should we allow fathers to kill a woman's children so that he can mate with her? Your statement also directly contradicts the theory of evolution. If homosexuality were a normal thing, those animals (and people) who were gay would not reproduce, and thus would die out. If it were a gene, it would not be passed on to future generations. So if you believe in evolution, you have some serious conflicts.

Put your crappy argument away. It was discredited years and years ago.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Cuda1447

Originally posted by: stormbv
If homosexuality was unnatural then homosexuality would never have existed.

God, please deal with Bush and his minions, they are Evil in its purest form. Thanks!

You have flawed logic sir. Just because it exists does not mean its natural.

No, *you* have the flawed logic.

Homosexuality exists not only in humans but in many other species, too. It's a naturally occurring aspect of life on this planet. It's not the fault of homosexuals that many people in this country are too narrow-minded to see past the Bible.

Other animals also eat their own crap. Should we start doing that? Other animals kill the young of others, should we allow fathers to kill a woman's children so that he can mate with her? Your statement also directly contradicts the theory of evolution. If homosexuality were a normal thing, those animals (and people) who were gay would not reproduce, and thus would die out. If it were a gene, it would not be passed on to future generations. So if you believe in evolution, you have some serious conflicts.

Put your crappy argument away. It was discredited years and years ago.

Crappy argument? Hunh? It's a scientific fact. 😕

Educate yourself

 

[LinuxIdiot]

omfg i clicked that link 🙁 @ work and it came up with a proxy error bout sexuality hahaha

 

[TerryMathews]

The problem IMO is that we use the same term (marriage) to define both the spiritual and legal union of two people. This should never have happened. There should be seperate terms for the legal and spiritual connotations of the word.

Kind of like common law marriages. Those people were never 'married' in a church, so they only take advantage of the legal connotation of the word. Something along the lines of civil union or enjoinment would work much better.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: LinuxIdiot
omfg i clicked that link 🙁 @ work and it came up with a proxy error bout sexuality hahaha

heh...try this, then:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D031225377X/scottbidstrupshoA/102-5417890-8584945



And, TerryMatthews, what is the big deal? It's a freaking WORD! You're looking to make a politically correct term. Like getting rid of "evolution" in place of "biological changes over time".

 

[LinuxIdiot]

I wonder how different the reaction would be if this was a race issue and the Bible "holier than thou book" had advocated using other races as slaves and went on to name certain races that it was ok to use for slavery. If it didnt hate on homosexuals this would not be a big deal in todays PC "i.e. fvcked up" world. OMG they can say they are legally married OoH NNON OO teh human race is gonna die out! AIIIEEEEEEEEEnoNONoN!!@@!!

There are 281.4 million people in the United States

273.6 million people live in 105.5 million households

52% or 54.5 million households were maintained by "Married Couples"

26% or 27.2 million households were people living alone

5.5 million households consisted of 'unmarried partners', with 4.9 million consisting of opposite sex (heterosexual) partners.

California had the largest number of unmarried partner households (684,000)

While the national average holds with 1.3% of unmarried partner households consisting of same sex (homosexual) partners - California had 92,000 homosexual couples or 16%, with 54% of these couples consisting of gay men

Come on what is gonna happen they are gonna multiply and over-run the world get over the silly freaking word and let PC flow and let it be equal it is unfair to think its ok to exclude them from a "social club" and say here you can have this social club for "your people" - what does this remind you of?

 

[notfred]

How long untill Bush gets someone to introduce a bill banning divorce? His goal is to "protect the sanctity of marriage", right?

 

[LinuxIdiot]

Prolly not long after he finishes his prayer :\ http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/05/bush.loudnoise.ap/index.html

Our PURPOSE is to reach leaders for Jesus Christ.

Our OBJECTIVE is to Pray for all in authority, that we might live godly lives.

Our STRATEGY is to use Prayer Breakfast events. They have shown to be highly effective at reaching into our community and impact our leaders. They create a desire to become involved and also remind us of our country's heritage.

- Taken from http://pbnet.org/ Prayer Breakfast Network