SweetCherry
Sex Dork
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Posts
- 13,358
I just got done reading this. Let's all keep our fingers crossed.
The link:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=5&u=/usatoday/20030729/ts_usatoday/5361389
And the story:
Supporters and opponents of gay marriage are bracing for a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that could open the door to same-sex marriages nationwide -- or slam it firmly shut.
The decision, in a case brought by seven gay and lesbian couples seeking marriage licenses, could come any day. It will be the first case asserting a right to gay marriage to reach a state high court decision.
Two court decisions in June have pushed the issue of gay marriage to the forefront. The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) invalidated state laws that banned consensual gay sex, and a court in Ontario, Canada, ruled that gay couples could not be barred from marrying there.
The Massachusetts ruling will apply only to that state. Even so, if the court rules in favor of same-sex couples, the decision likely will be used to attack ''defense of marriage'' laws that 37 states and the federal government have enacted since 1995. Those laws define marriage as a union of a woman and a man. A proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage that way has been introduced in the House of Representatives but has not been voted on.
Legal observers on both sides of the issue say they suspect that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, generally liberal, will permit the licenses to be granted.
''It wouldn't happen right away, but over 10 years or so, (such a decision) has the real potential to change the nature of marriage,'' says Bill Duncan, who is counsel to the Marriage Law Project, a group in Washington, D.C., that supports preserving the traditional definition of marriage.
In the Massachusetts case, seven couples denied marriage licenses in 2001 are making two basic claims: that they are being discriminated against based on their sex, and that the state's constitution protects their right to marry, just as it does for heterosexuals.
Citing the long history of traditional marriage, Massachusetts disputes the claim that same-sex couples have a legal right to marriage. Preserving the traditional definition of marriage is good social policy, the state argues, because it promotes family life.
Courts in at least three states have refused to honor ''civil unions,'' ceremonies that gained legal status in Vermont in 2000. Civil unions confer many rights on gay and lesbian couples without granting them licenses to marry.
In April, a judge in New York became the first jurist to recognize the Vermont unions by allowing the partner of a deceased gay man to bring a survivor's lawsuit against a hospital in New York City.
Advocates of same-sex marriage say Vermont-style unions don't meet the legal and emotional needs of many gay and lesbian couples.
''Marriage is a gateway to over 1,000 federal protections, (such as) Social Security (news - web sites) survivors benefits, health care and pension benefits,'' says Josh Friedes, advocacy director for the Freedom to Marry Coalition of Massachusetts. ''And the word 'marriage' is deeply meaningful. Without it, you are stamping gays and lesbians as 'separate,' and . . . separate isn't equal.''
The court decision in Massachusetts could help make same-sex marriage a nationwide phenomenon. If Massachusetts sanctions such marriages, out-of-state couples could marry there and demand that their home states recognize the union.
Even if their state has a defense-of-marriage act, the couples could argue that the Constitution requires their state to recognize another state's official acts
The link:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=5&u=/usatoday/20030729/ts_usatoday/5361389
And the story:
Supporters and opponents of gay marriage are bracing for a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that could open the door to same-sex marriages nationwide -- or slam it firmly shut.
The decision, in a case brought by seven gay and lesbian couples seeking marriage licenses, could come any day. It will be the first case asserting a right to gay marriage to reach a state high court decision.
Two court decisions in June have pushed the issue of gay marriage to the forefront. The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) invalidated state laws that banned consensual gay sex, and a court in Ontario, Canada, ruled that gay couples could not be barred from marrying there.
The Massachusetts ruling will apply only to that state. Even so, if the court rules in favor of same-sex couples, the decision likely will be used to attack ''defense of marriage'' laws that 37 states and the federal government have enacted since 1995. Those laws define marriage as a union of a woman and a man. A proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage that way has been introduced in the House of Representatives but has not been voted on.
Legal observers on both sides of the issue say they suspect that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, generally liberal, will permit the licenses to be granted.
''It wouldn't happen right away, but over 10 years or so, (such a decision) has the real potential to change the nature of marriage,'' says Bill Duncan, who is counsel to the Marriage Law Project, a group in Washington, D.C., that supports preserving the traditional definition of marriage.
In the Massachusetts case, seven couples denied marriage licenses in 2001 are making two basic claims: that they are being discriminated against based on their sex, and that the state's constitution protects their right to marry, just as it does for heterosexuals.
Citing the long history of traditional marriage, Massachusetts disputes the claim that same-sex couples have a legal right to marriage. Preserving the traditional definition of marriage is good social policy, the state argues, because it promotes family life.
Courts in at least three states have refused to honor ''civil unions,'' ceremonies that gained legal status in Vermont in 2000. Civil unions confer many rights on gay and lesbian couples without granting them licenses to marry.
In April, a judge in New York became the first jurist to recognize the Vermont unions by allowing the partner of a deceased gay man to bring a survivor's lawsuit against a hospital in New York City.
Advocates of same-sex marriage say Vermont-style unions don't meet the legal and emotional needs of many gay and lesbian couples.
''Marriage is a gateway to over 1,000 federal protections, (such as) Social Security (news - web sites) survivors benefits, health care and pension benefits,'' says Josh Friedes, advocacy director for the Freedom to Marry Coalition of Massachusetts. ''And the word 'marriage' is deeply meaningful. Without it, you are stamping gays and lesbians as 'separate,' and . . . separate isn't equal.''
The court decision in Massachusetts could help make same-sex marriage a nationwide phenomenon. If Massachusetts sanctions such marriages, out-of-state couples could marry there and demand that their home states recognize the union.
Even if their state has a defense-of-marriage act, the couples could argue that the Constitution requires their state to recognize another state's official acts
