Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry

[Djinn Raffo]

That being said:

I really think that Federal Governments have no place screwing about in marriage.

Besides.. this amendment would take years to ratify and likely never pass. And is just damn stupid to try to amend your constitution to do such a thing.. don't you have more important things on your mind than who is marrying who?

Don't forget.. your constitution was also amended for prohibition.. look how that turned out?

[Chewbacca]

You make valid points Djinn and thanks for the article. The door would be open for individual states to make civil unions.

I still dont know if Civil unions exactly equate to marriage though.

For example, there is no gaurantee that that a state must recognize another state's civil unions though Built-in to the benifits of marriage is that a marriage in one state is valid in all the others.

Well whatever, seperate but equal didnt work before, shouldn't be acceptable now, and damn it, it certainly doesn't belong in the constitution.

[Timber Loftis]

From the Reuters article:

OTHER LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS Elaborating on this theme, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said "states have a right to enter into their own legal arrangements, certainly hospital visitation rights, insurance benefits and civil unions."

I'd like to note how amazingly far we've come. Here we have a deep south Republican President stating that states should certainly be allowed to adopt laws giving homosexual couples the rights of marriage, such as hospital visitation and civil unions, just so long as it's not called "marriage." Let's remember that 30 years ago an openly gay man in the south was at risk of bodily injury. Just pointing out the "glass is half full" side of things.

Now, folks, get meta with me. I think that on a macro level all social change that is good is also slow to come about. The upheavals that happen overnight tend to not last, I think. Or, more pointedly to the topic, when it comes to "opening the doors of society" up to a previously-discriminated-against group, society has to "take its time" accepting the change. Not everyone's brains can grasp new belief systems overnight, especially where prejudice is concerned.

There were 50 years of "separate but equal" treatment following Plessy v. Ferguson before Brown v. Bd. of Edu. of Topeka came along to state "separate is never equal." Were those 50 years, or at least some portion of them, as well as the ensuing civil rights movements, necessary for us as a society to have time to experience "growing pains?"

Now, surely after we the American society have experienced grappling with discrimination once in one form, it will be easier for us to do it again. However, won't some time for acceptance still be needed, even if it's a lot less time? This notion resounds when Vermont passes a civil union to open the door but rejects the notion of marriage (which they did consider) as well as it resounds when Edwards says "I don't think society is ready to accept gay marriage."

Now, the danger in pointing out patterns of social change such as these is that conservatives can latch on to them to make the "slippery slope" arguments. That is to say, the argument that over time we are becoming slowly morally degraded -- that today we are willing to approve a man having ungodly intercourse with another man and that this may be evidence that tomorrow we would be willing to approve even worse sins that may be considered anathema today. What next, we approve sex with animals? blood fetishes? incest? polygamy? state sanctioned orgies? You see where this can go, and I don't mean to rattle the cages of that "moral conservative" monster.

However, I like to try to identify patterns over time, and I'm wondering if this is one.

[ryaldin]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: From the Reuters article: quote: OTHER LEGAL ARRANGEMENTS Elaborating on this theme, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said "states have a right to enter into their own legal arrangements, certainly hospital visitation rights, insurance benefits and civil unions."

I'd like to note how amazingly far we've come. Here we have a deep south Republican President stating that states should certainly be allowed to adopt laws giving homosexual couples the rights of marriage, such as hospital visitation and civil unions, just so long as it's not called "marriage." Let's remember that 30 years ago an openly gay man in the south was at risk of bodily injury. Just pointing out the "glass is half full" side of things.

Now, folks, get meta with me. I think that on a macro level all social change that is good is also slow to come about. The upheavals that happen overnight tend to not last, I think. Or, more pointedly to the topic, when it comes to "opening the doors of society" up to a previously-discriminated-against group, society has to "take its time" accepting the change. Not everyone's brains can grasp new belief systems overnight, especially where prejudice is concerned.

There were 50 years of "separate but equal" treatment following Plessy v. Ferguson before Brown v. Bd. of Edu. of Topeka came along to state "separate is never equal." Were those 50 years, or at least some portion of them, as well as the ensuing civil rights movements, necessary for us as a society to have time to experience "growing pains?"

Now, surely after we the American society have experienced grappling with discrimination once in one form, it will be easier for us to do it again. However, won't some time for acceptance still be needed, even if it's a lot less time? This notion resounds when Vermont passes a civil union to open the door but rejects the notion of marriage (which they did consider) as well as it resounds when Edwards says "I don't think society is ready to accept gay marriage."

Now, the danger in pointing out patterns of social change such as these is that conservatives can latch on to them to make the "slippery slope" arguments. That is to say, the argument that over time we are becoming slowly morally degraded -- that today we are willing to approve a man having ungodly intercourse with another man and that this may be evidence that tomorrow we would be willing to approve even worse sins that may be considered anathema today. What next, we approve sex with animals? blood fetishes? incest? polygamy? state sanctioned orgies? You see where this can go, and I don't mean to rattle the cages of that "moral conservative" monster.

However, I like to try to identify patterns over time, and I'm wondering if this is one. [/QUOTE]It's taken humanity millenia to get to where it is today, but as social acceptance and education increases, so does the speed with which social change comes. Just look at the last two centuries, and it's possible to see the slow changes finally begin to come to fruition: racism has become archaic, out-dated and socially unacceptable. Rights for laborers, rights for women, rights for children and the handicapped. Yes, there are still hold-outs that will continue to stand by what 'pappy' has told them, but an overwhelming and constantly increasing majority of people have become, at the risk of destroying my argument with a foolish word, enlightened to social justice, or the lack thereof.

Few people can find cause to object to social changes on a truly objective level; most people just have difficulty accepting the way in which the changes in the social stratification will affect what they believe, be it a religion, or a social code or a family practice. Given time, I believe that the changes will occur, despite or maybe because of the opposing sides in every argument.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by ryaldin: It's taken humanity millenia to get to where it is today, but as social acceptance and education increases, so does the speed with which social change comes. Just look at the last two centuries, and it's possible to see the slow changes finally begin to come to fruition: racism has become archaic, out-dated and socially unacceptable. Rights for laborers, rights for women, rights for children and the handicapped. Yes, there are still hold-outs that will continue to stand by what 'pappy' has told them, but an overwhelming and constantly increasing majority of people have become, at the risk of destroying my argument with a foolish word, enlightened to social justice, or the lack thereof. Few people can find cause to object to social changes on a truly objective level; most people just have difficulty accepting the way in which the changes in the social stratification will affect what they believe, be it a religion, or a social code or a family practice. Given time, I believe that the changes will occur, despite or maybe because of the opposing sides in every argument.

One persons progress is anothers regress.

There is a huge case for the view that all our "advances" both technological and social, are regressions.

[Timber Loftis]

One persons progress is anothers regress. There is a huge case for the view that all our "advances" both technological and social, are regressions.

True, I think. I don't know that it applies to gay coupling/marriage, but it is a valid base point. However, Yorick, I'd have to see you line up certain points of progress/regress to see if I agree.

And, that, perhaps, is a salient point. On each issue, people will likely disagree as to whether it is progress or regress. In the end, is there any ultimate touchstone by which to decide a moral question other than the majority of the voters?? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

[wellard]

Phew! After reading this thread carefully over the last two days on an issue that I have much to learn about, I really want to say a few things but feel overwhelmed and frustrated by some of the arguments made. These points I wish to make, and ponder over, are from three sides of the debate.

(1) The "smarts" or lack of, in the political argument of the FOR debate. To much to soon

Timber on page one

"It's a "adjustment time" thing. I think the "separate but equal" civil union is a good way for gay couples to have the legal rights they need while making the whole thing palatable to conservatives who have a huge to-may-to/to-mah-to issue. After some time under a civil union system, renaming the thing as "marriage" would be less controversial."

All true on a sober outsiders observation, but when you have been underground for so long it’s asking too much not to rush towards the light when it appears.


(2) Yoricks very simply put but ultimately pertinent point made on page5

"What is marriage anyway?"

If it is about pure law rights this argument would be over and done for me. But this question of Yoricks does beg the question, is this unfairly forcing the churches hand? (If you accept that the marriage act as opposed to the civil union act is a religious bond) and what is being gained here but an aggressive point scoring act. If you have gained equality in law and practice, why suffer the church to comply against its long held beliefs? This is an issue I have great confusion with still.

(3) However confused I am over the marriage part of this debate Chewys link on page 5 has focused me on the greater outcome.


Phyllis Lyon, 79, left, and Del Martin, 83, embrace after being married at San Francisco City Hall, they had been together for five decades.

Pic here

This argument over what is right or wrong could be stopped and declared bankrupt if we take time to study this picture. As Chewy says, “it says it all”. Please all of you reading take time to look again at this picture. To really LOOK at this picture. The story the faces are telling us.

The tears of joy, the release of the shackles of oppression, emotion of a dream being realized, and a simple embrace of two people totally and utterly in love with one another. A love that has stood the test of time

How can G.W bush legislate against an instinct as basic as love?

How can the church for all its good, be against the love expressed here?

Please one and all restudy this picture and answer me this one question before you go back to the more cerebal debate.

Is the love expressed in that picture really more dangerous to the sanctity of marriage than Brittany Spears recant abuse of the marriage act?

[ 02-26-2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: wellard ]

[Timber Loftis]

Wellard, it would not force the church's hand. The government is not going to tell a church who it must marry. A church can refuse to marry a man to a man just as well as it can refuse to marry a jew to a gentile. The particular churches' rules for marriage will not be affected. True, they may have to look at a gay couple being married across the street at another church, but that's about as much as it will encroach upon the religion.

You mention the picture. Gay couples are just as happy to be wed under the Civil Union in Vermont. In my experience, the legal recognition of a union gets the ball 80 or 90 yards down the field. I think that being able to call it "marriage" as opposed to something else is not as crucial as having the legally-recognized union.

And sorry for the American football metaphor. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Oh, and if you want to see more emotion, just wait to all those gay marriages become null and void once the CA Attorney General gets San Francisco into court. It's acts are illegal under CA law, and the marriages it is recognizing are no more valid than if it were marrying brother to sister. All such marriages are simply null and void under the law -- they never happened. That's NOT doing these couples a favor, it's using them as a political tool and putting them in the middle of a pressure cooker. I think they will end up suffering in the end because what they think they have will be no more.

Also, offtopic, if you're wondering why the screen looks too big, your posted URL threw the screen size off.

[ 02-26-2004, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[wellard]

oops fixed [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Civil Disobedience by mayors spreads eastward.

Today's NY Times:
_________________________________
February 27, 2004
Gay Marriage Debate Shifts to Small New York Township
By CHRISTINE HAUSER

Barry Nevins and his partner have been together as a couple for more than four years, and even exchanged rings and vows on a Caribbean cruise trip.

But today, angered by President Bush's call this week for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages, they hope to take their relationship one step further in New Paltz, N.Y., where the mayor, Jason West, has said he will perform marriages for up to a dozen same-sex couples today.

After making headlines in San Francisco and Massachusetts, the national debate over gay marriage migrated today to a smaller stage, the Hudson Valley community of New Paltz north of New York City, after Mr. West said that several gay couples would be married.

An official in the town clerk's office said that by law marriage licenses could not be given out to same-sex couples, and therefore the legal basis for the marriages performed today was in question.

But Mr. West is expected to perform ceremonies for gay couples that solemnize a marriage, the first such ceremonies in New York State, where same-sex couples have historically been refused marriage licenses.

Mr. Nevins, a 42-year-old hospital administrator, said he had no idea whether his marriage to his partner, whom he declined to name, would be legally recognized any more than their Caribbean "marriage" three years ago.

But like many of the gay couples who are trying to get marriage licenses, that is not the whole point.

"It is a statement to say that no one has the right to tell me who I can marry," Mr. Nevins said in a telephone interview from the town clerk's office in New Paltz, where he was unable to get a license but instead was given directions to the mayor's office.

Mr. West, who is 26 and was elected last year on the Green Party ticket, has said that marriages for gay couples were a matter of equal rights.

He told CNN today that for a marriage to be legal in New York state it only has to be "properly solemnized by someone with authority to do so."

"As mayor I am fully able to do that and at noon today I start solemnizing marriages regardless of gender," Mr. West said.

On Tuesday, President Bush, citing San Francisco's decision to issue marriage licenses to gay couples despite state laws that appear to be to the contrary, said that the union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution. He said he supported an amendment that would counteract "activist judges" who have issued rulings in favor of gay marriage.

More than 3,300 same-sex couples have gotten married in San Francisco since Feb. 12, and California courts are now considering legal challenges both to the marriages and the laws that forbid them.

Rosie O'Donnell, the comedian who has become a prominent advocate for gay rights since she announced she was a lesbian in 2002, married her partner of six years in San Francisco on Thursday, an act that she said was "inspired" by President Bush's remarks.

Today, television trucks converged on New Paltz, located not far from the Hudson river and the Shawangunk Mountains, a ridge of rugged and rocky cliffs popular with rock climbers.

"This would have to be the largest coverage of New Paltz since I joined the department 28 years ago," said the township's police chief, Raymond K. Zappone.

Mr. Nevins said he and his partner drove two hours to reach the mayor's office.

"Gay and lesbian people have been persecuted and oppressed," he said. "If Rosie O'Donnell can go and get married, I think we can too."

Thomas Crampton contributed reporting from New Paltz to this article