Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry

[BugsBunny1078]

SO I assume that now a man can marry his own brother? There is no reason to not let a man marry his own brother since they cannot have any gene defected children together.There certainly has never been any specific law barring a man from marrying his own brother. SO now that that is legal they will have to repeal the limitation on marrying your own sister as well.They did pass those limits because people did try to marry their own sister/mom/daughter obviously. Well now they will have to allow it . They cannot alllow a man to marry his own brother but not his own sister. That would be discriminatory. If a father and daughter want to marry who the heck are you judgemental pricks to say they can't?

 

[preCRT]

Maybe conservatives are terrified that gays may have better marriages, and fewer divorces than straight couples.
Wouldn't that be a kick in the butt?

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: classy
You said nothing really worth chewing on. Society is built on principles and certain foundations. Hopefully out of those principles you can a have society that enjoys the very things you mentioned. Gays have been showing their public affection for years. Doesn't mean that now they should be entitled to the same status as a married couple of a man and a woman. Its amazing how stupid people like you sound. You'll sit here in your ignorance and defend gay marriage for rights and yet this country has old folks who can't get married because of certain financial reasons. I don't see you waving your towel for them. Whats next? Let me guess, you'll defend the drug dealer on the corner, saying he should be entitled to unemployment during the slow periods. LOL

Haha...ah yes we on the left sound so crazy for not wanting to stomp out the minorities among us. Nice!

And as for drug dealers, they hurt people, they cause addictions, they cause crime. You're a hypocrite for somehow insinuating that gay marriage is like drug dealers collecting unemployment. And as for the Anatomy 101 shout-out I'm going to repeat my last sentance and change some words. You're a hypocrite for somehow insinuating that gay marriage is like someone marrying a dog.

Too bad you can't openly hate black people, foreigners, or some minorities anymore; at least you've still got gay people. But hey at least your parents and grandparents got to. Hopefully your children can hate someone when they're old enough to close their eyes to the ever-changing world around them.

Its not about hating people. Thats what some of you don't get. We all all make choices. Whether good or bad. And those choices bring with them consequences. People can drink but can't drive drunk. People can have the "job" of selling drugs, but will go to jail when caught. We define marriage as that of one man being married to one woman. If your caught being married to more than one person you go to jail. You can be gay all you want, but that doesn't mean now you should be entitled to the same benefits as a man and woman who are married. If a man and woman don't want to get married they are not entitled to the same benefits or status if they were married. Why now do we have "expand the law" to include an "alternative" lifestyle. When they decided to be gay it came with its set of consequences. Now just because you don't like those consequences don't come crying now about equal rights. Just like the guy who sells drugs, doing so comes with certain consequences. Just because you don't like the rules after the fact, you should have thought of that before you made the decision. Hey good debate. Outty for now.

 

[Corn]

DanJ, you obviously have no idea what hypocrisy means.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: classy


We define marriage as that of one man being married to one woman. If your caught being married to more than one person you go to jail. You can be gay all you want, but that doesn't mean now you should be entitled to the same benefits as a man and woman who are married. If a man and woman don't want to get married they are not entitled to the same benefits or status if they were married. Why now do we have "expand the law" to include an "alternative" lifestyle. When they decided to be gay it came with its set of consequences. Now just because you don't like those consequences don't come crying now about equal rights. Just like the guy who sells drugs, doing so comes with certain consequences. Just because you don't like the rules after the fact, you should have thought of that before you made the decision. Hey good debate. Outty for now.

Who is we and since when is it a choice on whether or not someone is gay? Also, do you honestly think they sit down over a cup of coffee and decide whether or not they want to be gay?

You also did not answer my question; give one legal reason why it should be banned.

 

[fitzhue]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: fitzhue

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: fitzhue


So it is my understanding you would just want to roll back hundreds of years of societal advancement? Times change, people change, get over it.

And that means the definition of marriage should change?

CkG

I really don't see why not. If society is going to change (homosexuality is becoming more popular), then why shouldn't peoples ideals change to accept them as equal, and give them equal rights?

That's the point - they don't meet the definition for marriage so the want to change the definition of marriage to suit their "needs". This isn't about "rights" - this is about getting something they don't currently "qualify" for.

CkG

I didn't know you had to "qualify" to be treated equally. The only reason why they don't "qualify" is because of a religious definition that the government seems all too bent up on upholding.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

I love gay people as much as anyone else. I have even been to a union ceremony for lesbian women.
Gays are welcome in my church and I will give them a hug and hold their hands and I don't look down on them.
Im not their judge but at the same time I know that homosexuality is wrong. Alot of us have our own issues, me included.We are all sinners.None of us any better than others.
At the same time I believe marriage in sacred between a man and a woman. I do not commit adultery or even look too long at married women or allow myself to desire them for the sin that that is. If your daughter being a maiden threw herself at me I will happily oblige her desires but if your wife did the same she would be turned aside.I don't believe in divorce, marriage is for life. You make a mistake you live with it forever and deal with it the best you can until the differences are resolved.
Saying homosexuals can marry eachother that's not something I accept as real. I wouldn;t sleep with a woman who is married to another man but one of those fake lesbian marriages I would. God does not consider that adultery and neither do I. It's not real and it never will be. You cannot marry your own sex because all it will ever be is a legal loophole and never be a marriage. nuff said.

 

[BDawg]

I just don't see why people are so sensitive about gays getting married. IMHO, the mass divorces our country experiences harms the institute far more than gay marriage ever could.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: fitzhue

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: fitzhue

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: fitzhue


So it is my understanding you would just want to roll back hundreds of years of societal advancement? Times change, people change, get over it.

And that means the definition of marriage should change?

CkG

I really don't see why not. If society is going to change (homosexuality is becoming more popular), then why shouldn't peoples ideals change to accept them as equal, and give them equal rights?

That's the point - they don't meet the definition for marriage so the want to change the definition of marriage to suit their "needs". This isn't about "rights" - this is about getting something they don't currently "qualify" for.

CkG

I didn't know you had to "qualify" to be treated equally. The only reason why they don't "qualify" is because of a religious definition that the government seems all too bent up on upholding.

OK, since we have yet to understand how "definitions" work. Let me ask you this. What are the requirements for being defined as a farmer? Would you not have to farm? (yes) What would you have to do to become a teacher? Fulfill requirements needed to teach? What about an athlete? Would they not need to be in sports?
Now again - why should marriage be re-defined as something other than what it has meant forever?(man & woman)
Why just because a gay couple doesn't meet the definition required do they not have "equal rights"? They have just as much right to marry as anyone else does. Any man can marry any woman in American society(according to the age laws of the state) So no - I see no "equal rights" issue here. Just because they have an "alternative lifestyle" doesn't mean that we need to redefine the meaning of marriage just so they can "participate".

Meh - some people like to bring up "rights" when infact there is no "right" involved. This is one such case. Marriage is defined as one man & one woman.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: classy


We define marriage as that of one man being married to one woman. If your caught being married to more than one person you go to jail. You can be gay all you want, but that doesn't mean now you should be entitled to the same benefits as a man and woman who are married. If a man and woman don't want to get married they are not entitled to the same benefits or status if they were married. Why now do we have "expand the law" to include an "alternative" lifestyle. When they decided to be gay it came with its set of consequences. Now just because you don't like those consequences don't come crying now about equal rights. Just like the guy who sells drugs, doing so comes with certain consequences. Just because you don't like the rules after the fact, you should have thought of that before you made the decision. Hey good debate. Outty for now.

Who is we and since when is it a choice on whether or not someone is gay? Also, do you honestly think they sit down over a cup of coffee and decide whether or not they want to be gay?

You also did not answer my question; give one legal reason why it should be banned.

It isn't "banned" - it just isn't going to be allowed to be redefined.

CkG

 

[Piano Man]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Here we go . . .

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. (Full story)

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

CNN.com

Amen to that, literally!!!

 

[SNC]

Just because I cant resist putting in my $0.02. I think that homosexuality is a defense system. So that people that are defective in some way shape or form, don?t reproduce. Sort of natures own gene pool maintenance.

I dont want what I have with my wife mistaken for a couple pecker puffing bone dancers. Thats why.


Ill edit later

 

[fitzhue]

Originally posted by: SNC
Just because I cant resist putting in my $0.02. I think that homosexuality is a defense system. So that people that are defective in some way shape or form, don?t reproduce. Sort of natures own gene pool maintenance.

I dont want what I have with my wife mistaken for a couple pecker puffing bone dancers. Thats why.


Ill edit later

:Q Yea i was going to but i'm not gonna touch this.

 

[markuskidd]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
This is a bad judgement, and I think very few on either side of this argument want. The exact same rights under a different title isn't seperate, it's just that - different. Saying it has to be called 'marriage' is just going to feed all the hard-core people on both sides.

Why the hell should the word marriage matter?? Is marriage anywhere near sacred anymore? What is it, 50+% fail? Who knows, maybe they'll do better at it then straight people do.

Who cares; let gay people marry if they want.

Thats the problem, marriage is not sacred anymore, but it should be. Marriage has since the the beginning of time, has been that of a man and woman. And it should remain as such. This is one thing I am in total agreement with Bush and the republicans, marriage needs to be defined by law.

Marriage has not been 'been that of a man and a woman' since the beginning of time. Western cultures, eastern cultures, 'primitive' cultures, 'civilized' cultures, various religions, etc etc have all had varying terms that we equate with 'marriage' in English. And these words have encompassed a variety of definitions 'since the beginning of time.' Please learn that the world is larger than what you can see from your window.

 

[fitzhue]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK, since we have yet to understand how "definitions" work. Let me ask you this. What are the requirements for being defined as a farmer? Would you not have to farm? (yes) What would you have to do to become a teacher? Fulfill requirements needed to teach? What about an athlete? Would they not need to be in sports?
Now again - why should marriage be re-defined as something other than what it has meant forever?(man & woman)
Why just because a gay couple doesn't meet the definition required do they not have "equal rights"? They have just as much right to marry as anyone else does. Any man can marry any woman in American society(according to the age laws of the state) So no - I see no "equal rights" issue here. Just because they have an "alternative lifestyle" doesn't mean that we need to redefine the meaning of marriage just so they can "participate".

Meh - some people like to bring up "rights" when infact there is no "right" involved. This is one such case. Marriage is defined as one man & one woman.

CkG

Well when i talk about rights, i'm talking about the fact that because a man and a woman are entitled to marry, they do get certain benefits (taxes, hospital visits, etc.), but according to the law now, if two gay people want to get married, they do not get these same privelidges as a result of their right (to marry) as a man and a woman do. How is that equal and fair? Call it marriage, call it whatever you want. But the fact of the matter is, gay people who want to marry are treated differently and thus unequally as compared to their heterosexual counterparts.

 

[Piano Man]

Originally posted by: SNC
Just because I cant resist putting in my $0.02. I think that homosexuality is a defense system. So that people that are defective in some way shape or form, don?t reproduce. Sort of natures own gene pool maintenance.

I dont want what I have with my wife mistaken for a couple pecker puffing bone dancers. Thats why.


Ill edit later

I know you are trying to be cute, but that line is very far from cute, and is actually much closer to hate speech.

 

[Zephyr106]

Meh - some people like to bring up "rights" when infact there is no "right" involved. This is one such case. Marriage is defined as one man & one woman.

This is an interesting argument.... that a "special societal case" can exist with one man and one woman. There are other "special societal cases" as well, such as a politician or ruler, one who rules others. Historically, in the large majority of societies most people could not attain this special societal position. In the majority of modern societies this is no longer the case- no one can be prohibited from being a politician due to conditions which they were born with. So red-haired, blind, etc. individuals can become politicians. There seems to be scientific consensus that homosexuality is a biological trait people are born with. So, is preventing people from attaining the legal social position of "marriage" or "civil union" due to their biological traits, akin to preventing people from becoming politicians due to biological traits?

Zephyr

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: fitzhue

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK, since we have yet to understand how "definitions" work. Let me ask you this. What are the requirements for being defined as a farmer? Would you not have to farm? (yes) What would you have to do to become a teacher? Fulfill requirements needed to teach? What about an athlete? Would they not need to be in sports?
Now again - why should marriage be re-defined as something other than what it has meant forever?(man & woman)
Why just because a gay couple doesn't meet the definition required do they not have "equal rights"? They have just as much right to marry as anyone else does. Any man can marry any woman in American society(according to the age laws of the state) So no - I see no "equal rights" issue here. Just because they have an "alternative lifestyle" doesn't mean that we need to redefine the meaning of marriage just so they can "participate".

Meh - some people like to bring up "rights" when infact there is no "right" involved. This is one such case. Marriage is defined as one man & one woman.

CkG

Well when i talk about rights, i'm talking about the fact that because a man and a woman are entitled to marry, they do get certain benefits (taxes, hospital visits, etc.), but according to the law now, if two gay people want to get married, they do not get these same privelidges as a result of their right (to marry) as a man and a woman do. How is that equal and fair? Call it marriage, call it whatever you want. But the fact of the matter is, gay people who want to marry are treated differently and thus unequally as compared to their heterosexual counterparts.

Maybe they don't "get these privileges" because they don't meet the definition for marriage. Anyone who meets the requirements for marriage(consenting above age(depending on state) man and woman) is allowed these privileges you speak of.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Meh - some people like to bring up "rights" when infact there is no "right" involved. This is one such case. Marriage is defined as one man & one woman.

This is an interesting argument.... that a "special societal case" can exist with one man and one woman. There are other "special societal cases" as well, such as a politician or ruler, one who rules others. Historically, in the large majority of societies most people could not attain this special societal position. In the majority of modern societies this is no longer the case- no one can be prohibited from being a politician due to conditions which they were born with. So red-haired, blind, etc. individuals can become politicians. There seems to be scientific consensus that homosexuality is a biological trait people are born with. So, is preventing people from attaining the legal social position of "marriage" or "civil union" due to their biological traits, akin to preventing people from becoming politicians due to biological traits?

Zephyr

No it's not. Let me tell you why. Even IF a person is "born gay" that still does not exclude them from being "married". They still can marry a woman if they are a man, and vice-versa.

CkG

 

[fitzhue]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: fitzhue

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK, since we have yet to understand how "definitions" work. Let me ask you this. What are the requirements for being defined as a farmer? Would you not have to farm? (yes) What would you have to do to become a teacher? Fulfill requirements needed to teach? What about an athlete? Would they not need to be in sports?
Now again - why should marriage be re-defined as something other than what it has meant forever?(man & woman)
Why just because a gay couple doesn't meet the definition required do they not have "equal rights"? They have just as much right to marry as anyone else does. Any man can marry any woman in American society(according to the age laws of the state) So no - I see no "equal rights" issue here. Just because they have an "alternative lifestyle" doesn't mean that we need to redefine the meaning of marriage just so they can "participate".

Meh - some people like to bring up "rights" when infact there is no "right" involved. This is one such case. Marriage is defined as one man & one woman.

CkG

Well when i talk about rights, i'm talking about the fact that because a man and a woman are entitled to marry, they do get certain benefits (taxes, hospital visits, etc.), but according to the law now, if two gay people want to get married, they do not get these same privelidges as a result of their right (to marry) as a man and a woman do. How is that equal and fair? Call it marriage, call it whatever you want. But the fact of the matter is, gay people who want to marry are treated differently and thus unequally as compared to their heterosexual counterparts.

Maybe they don't "get these privileges" because they don't meet the definition for marriage. Anyone who meets the requirements for marriage(consenting above age(depending on state) man and woman) is allowed these privileges you speak of.

Well you've succeeded in going in a complete circle. I said earlier that the definition should be changed along with the times, but you managed to say that this definition should be set in stone and anyone who doesn't meet the qualifications should effectively be left out.

Having said that, we're never going to agree so its time for me to grab some :beer:'s.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: fitzhue

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: fitzhue

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK, since we have yet to understand how "definitions" work. Let me ask you this. What are the requirements for being defined as a farmer? Would you not have to farm? (yes) What would you have to do to become a teacher? Fulfill requirements needed to teach? What about an athlete? Would they not need to be in sports?
Now again - why should marriage be re-defined as something other than what it has meant forever?(man & woman)
Why just because a gay couple doesn't meet the definition required do they not have "equal rights"? They have just as much right to marry as anyone else does. Any man can marry any woman in American society(according to the age laws of the state) So no - I see no "equal rights" issue here. Just because they have an "alternative lifestyle" doesn't mean that we need to redefine the meaning of marriage just so they can "participate".

Meh - some people like to bring up "rights" when infact there is no "right" involved. This is one such case. Marriage is defined as one man & one woman.

CkG

Well when i talk about rights, i'm talking about the fact that because a man and a woman are entitled to marry, they do get certain benefits (taxes, hospital visits, etc.), but according to the law now, if two gay people want to get married, they do not get these same privelidges as a result of their right (to marry) as a man and a woman do. How is that equal and fair? Call it marriage, call it whatever you want. But the fact of the matter is, gay people who want to marry are treated differently and thus unequally as compared to their heterosexual counterparts.

Maybe they don't "get these privileges" because they don't meet the definition for marriage. Anyone who meets the requirements for marriage(consenting above age(depending on state) man and woman) is allowed these privileges you speak of.

Well you've succeeded in going in a complete circle. I said earlier that the definition should be changed along with the times, but you managed to say that this definition should be set in stone and anyone who doesn't meet the qualifications should effectively be left out.

Having said that, we're never going to agree so its time for me to grab some :beer:'s.

Exactly - the argument always does that because I don't think definitions should change just because someone wants it to. Others seem to disagree - they think that definitions aren't important and should be changed when ever it suits their fancy.

But whatever - enjoy your :beer:

CkG

 

[markuskidd]

^^^
definition has changed, is changing, will change
marriage has always meant different things in different places

 

[heartsurgeon]

I am FOR Gay marriage......

i want gays to get married and end up paying more taxes becuase their combined income will put them in a higher tax bracket..
i want gays to have to pay lawyers lots of money when they get divorced (you can bet more than 50% of "gay marriages" are going to end in divorce)
gay alimony? HAHAHAHA this is gonna be good!!!

be careful what you wish for....it may come true....

 

[SNC]

Originally posted by: Piano Man

Originally posted by: SNC
Just because I cant resist putting in my $0.02. I think that homosexuality is a defense system. So that people that are defective in some way shape or form, don?t reproduce. Sort of natures own gene pool maintenance.

I dont want what I have with my wife mistaken for a couple pecker puffing bone dancers. Thats why.


Ill edit later

I know you are trying to be cute, but that line is very far from cute, and is actually much closer to hate speech.

No. I was not trying to be cute. It is how I feel. Please tell me how what I said could be hate speach?

 

[Zephyr106]

No it's not. Let me tell you why. Even IF a person is "born gay" that still does not exclude them from being "married". They still can marry a woman if they are a man, and vice-versa.

"born gay" in quotations seems to indicate that you think gays can just "stop being silly faggots", or that the word of the Lord can convert them. IIRC this has been scientifically disproved. So if a social institution based on a biological fact of heterosexuality does not allow for the biological fact of homosexuality, it returns to my previous example. Based on your comment, if the red haired guy wants to run for office when red heads are not allowed by law, sure, he can just dye his hair black and enter the race. A silly example, that can be extrapolated to the marriage debate. Should not society allow for biological traits that do not harm bystanders?

Zephyr