Mass. Court Rules Gay Marriage Ban Illegal

Queersetti

Bastardo Suave
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Posts
37,288


BOSTON (Reuters) - The highest court in Massachusetts ruled on Tuesday that the state cannot bar gays and lesbians from marrying, but it stopped short of ordering the state to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.


In a 4-3 ruling that could make Massachusetts the first state to legalize gay marriage, the Supreme Judicial Court said the state may not deny the rights conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.

"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution," the court said in its ruling.

The court remanded the case back to a state court to conform with its ruling, but said the ruling would be on hold for 180 days to allow the state legislature to take any action it may deem appropriate.

Gay marriages are forbidden in the United States, although one state, Vermont, allows same-sex civil unions -- contracts that essentially provide most of the legal rights and protections of marriage but under a different name.

A civil union is only recognized in the state in which it is granted while a marriage is recognized nationwide, experts said.

Debate over the issue of same-sex unions has intensified since Canada has taken steps to legalize gay marriages and the U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down state sodomy laws. Conservative critics say the Supreme Court's ruling could open the door to same-sex marriages in the United States.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, signed by former President Bill Clinton, defines marriage for federal purposes as between one woman and one man. Gay marriages are forbidden in the United States.
 
This is exciting news. I see a number of things occuring because of this decision too. I fully expect that the US Supreme Court will follow through with a similar decision as soon as they have a case appealed to them. The Defense of Marriage Act will become a major target as well because of this ruling.

I'm curious now as to how the Bush Admin will proceed with their stand against gay marriage.
 
ACLU Cheers Massachusetts High Court Decision Not to Deny Same-Sex Couples Right to Marry

November 18, 2003

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

BOSTON -- Ruling under its state constitution, Massachusetts' highest court today issued a landmark decision striking a blow against discrimination and making Massachusetts the first American state to no longer deny couples the right to marry solely because they are the same sex.

"This court ruling says that individuals who are police officers, firefighters and teachers who serve in our military and pay taxes cannot be denied the same rights as other couples simply because they are gay or lesbian," said Matt Coles, Director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. "The court today recognized that a constitution that protects individual rights does not allow government to say that only some families will be protected."

In a 4-3 ruling today, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found that the state marriage statute violated same-sex couples' rights to due process and equal protection under the state constitution. The Court ruled that the statute must cover same-sex couples and remanded the case to a trial court, ordering it to remedy the constitutional violations in the statute. The Court has also given the state legislature 180 days to consider how it may bring state law into compliance with the decision.

"With its decision, Massachusetts has paved the way for other states to protect the rights of other couples -- gay or straight -- to share in the benefits ordinarily associated with marriage, such input and access to medical information and medical insurance," said Carol Rose, Executive Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts.

In a practical sense, today's ruling will end discrimination against gay couples regarding pension benefits, medical insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights. The Massachusetts court's decision to no longer deny the right to marry is clearly the way to go, the ACLU said, rather than to proceed with a dangerous federal constitutional amendment that would, by attempting to ban same sex marriages and destroy all of the domestic partnership laws and other measures that state and local governments have passed to protect same-sex relationships.

Two provinces in Canada -- Ontario and British Columbia -- now allow same-sex marriages, and three states -- Hawaii, Vermont and California -- have some legal mechanism for protecting gay couples. More than 100 municipalities have adopted domestic partnership laws.

"Today's ruling from Massachusetts shows that the effort by some in Congress to amend the federal Constitution is totally off base," said Christopher Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "With all the pressing problems that Congress needs to address, it is unbelievable that some want to spend their energy amending the U.S. Constitution to make pronouncements about marriage. It is wrong, unnecessary and unproductive for everyone."

The Massachusetts case, Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health, was brought by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders on behalf of seven couples who want to marry in the state of Massachusetts. The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the couples.

In its brief, the ACLU noted that in much of the country, gay people have no protections for their relationships at all. People continue to be banned from their partners' hospital rooms, kept out of conversations with doctors about emergency treatment and cut out of survivor benefits when their partners die.

Just last month, the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a five-year-old boy who is being denied the Social Security survivor benefits that ordinarily go to a child when a parent dies. The boy was raised by two women, and his non-biological mother and the family's principal breadwinner passed away unexpectedly of an undiagnosed brain aneurysm at 38. The Social Security Administration refuses to recognize the boy as her child, even though she raised him with her partner, supported him and gave him her name.

The ACLU pointed to another case in Alaska in which the state denied a woman with dire medical problems health coverage even though her partner worked for the state. Their relationship, the state said, is not one we recognize. But when she applied to that same state for Medicaid, it said she didn't qualify because she was being supported by her partner.

"Contrary to what some will argue, lesbian and gay families do not get too much legal protection in this country," Coles said. "Most same-sex couples get no protection at all and suffer horribly for it."

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=14413&c=101
 
i am just trying to show my support for the decision. stop being such a weirdo who thinks everything is about sex.
 
simonedb27 said:
i am just trying to show my support for the decision. stop being such a weirdo who thinks everything is about sex.

Everything's not about sex?
 
no not all things are about sex.

one of my queer friends announced the decision during the break from our morning lecture. she was so excited and ended up buried in her laptop reading everything she could about the decision, smiling happily, rather than paying attention in the rest of the lecture. i don't blame her. this particular decision has very little to do with sex and everything to do with people that love each other being a little bit more accepted, at least in the realm of legal baloney.
 
I think that it is just a great decision and I hope that it continues. We constantly get our constitutional rights stomped on and most of us never even realize it. Hell, I can't even let the snow pile up in front of my house any longer. If I smoked, I couldn't go to a bar my friend owns and do that. Before long, there will be some damn law where I can't flip off bad drivers when I want.

Here is one decision that finally recognizes that equal... means equal.... by law.
 
I'm not sure what flipping people off has to do with gays achieving marriage in Massachusetts, but woo FUCKING damn anyway.

The really important part is that this is MARRIAGE. Not civil unions, not domestic partnerships, not anything but MARRIAGE. Thank you, Massachusetts!
 
If you haven't seen it, check out this post I made about the Democratic candidates for presidents' view on this matter.

Click here

SD
 
ExTrEmE DyKe said:
Now, let's just hope all the other states follow Massachusetts' footsteps and do the same! :p

Agreed, but if it makes it through in Mass, anyone can go get married there and the 14th amendment is interpreted to allow marriages in one state to be legal in any state. So all 50 states would be legally obliged to recognize it as a marriage.. so I guess eventually it will have to be the Supreme Court that decides this. I think on a Constitutional level it's pretty straightford, but some justices do tend to vote politically and in favor of their own "moral standards" and I would be interested to see their constitutional arguements against such a thing. If I were the SC I would vote 9-0 in favor of gay marriage.

SD
 
There was much celebration up here in the Pioneer Valley, especially Northampton. I read all about it in the UMass newspaper. I'm really happy, since I have a handful of friends who this effects.
 
College_geek said:
There was much celebration up here in the Pioneer Valley, especially Northampton. I read all about it in the UMass newspaper. I'm really happy, since I have a handful of friends who this effects.

Check your PMs
 
ExTrEmE DyKe said:
Now, let's just hope all the other states follow Massachusetts' footsteps and do the same! :p

From your mouth to God's ear!

I'm happy with small baby steps forward. Yes, I'd love to see some huge leaps, but as long as we're not moving backwards I'm alright.
 
Here's better news for you...in yesterday's globe the city of Cambridge has said that they're going to hold a town meeting to decide whether or not to ignore the 180 day stay and start issuing marriage licenses as early as next week. Heh

My concern about the stay is that Romney, our evil governor, will do something to try and pare it down (he's already trying to offer civil unions instead) or do something to stay it until 06 when it can be put on a ballot.

Overall...I have very high hopes for my state and my friends
 
Overdue, but good

This is long overdue, and it's outrageous that gays and lesbians should have been denied the right to marry for so long, but it is a positive development. Of course, the Republicans will use the issue to rally their fascistic base, and the Democrats will spinelessly cower before the extreme right wing, as usual.
 
You know what would be interesting? If someone ran for president, was elected, and then announced to the nation that he (or she...someday!) was bi or gay. It would be especially juicy if he was well liked by the majority of the country. I wonder if that would change anything. Hmm...

It reminds me of a time when a friend of mine said, "What this country needs is a black lesbian president".
 
College_geek said:
You know what would be interesting? If someone ran for president, was elected, and then announced to the nation that he (or she...someday!) was bi or gay. It would be especially juicy if he was well liked by the majority of the country. I wonder if that would change anything. Hmm...

It reminds me of a time when a friend of mine said, "What this country needs is a black lesbian president".
Heh! That WOULD be interesting. I do think the nation is closer than ever to accepting the possibility of a female president, but it's not going to be Carol Moseley Braun. I admire her for staying in the race when her chances are so slim (as a black female, she's got TWO strikes against her) but she's just not going to make it. Now Hillary Clinton just might have a chance...I've heard she's considering it. As for black presidents, Colin Powell was said to have a good chance.

There aren't too many nationally known gay politicians, though. Barney Frank is the only one that comes to mind without a Google search, and he's been in Congress for years and seems happy there. I do think Harvey Milk could have done it if not for that stupid guy Dan White.
 
Etoile said:
Heh! That WOULD be interesting. I do think the nation is closer than ever to accepting the possibility of a female president, but it's not going to be Carol Moseley Braun. I admire her for staying in the race when her chances are so slim (as a black female, she's got TWO strikes against her) but she's just not going to make it. Now Hillary Clinton just might have a chance...I've heard she's considering it. As for black presidents, Colin Powell was said to have a good chance.

There aren't too many nationally known gay politicians, though. Barney Frank is the only one that comes to mind without a Google search, and he's been in Congress for years and seems happy there. I do think Harvey Milk could have done it if not for that stupid guy Dan White.

Although I think Hilary could have a chance... not this election.. maybe in another 8 years or so. Maybe in 4... we'll see.. I don't think it's time yet though... she would be better off being re-elected Senator before going for the big shebang.
 
Etoile said:
Heh! That WOULD be interesting. I do think the nation is closer than ever to accepting the possibility of a female president, but it's not going to be Carol Moseley Braun. I admire her for staying in the race when her chances are so slim (as a black female, she's got TWO strikes against her) but she's just not going to make it. Now Hillary Clinton just might have a chance...I've heard she's considering it. As for black presidents, Colin Powell was said to have a good chance.

There aren't too many nationally known gay politicians, though. Barney Frank is the only one that comes to mind without a Google search, and he's been in Congress for years and seems happy there. I do think Harvey Milk could have done it if not for that stupid guy Dan White.


I suspect that the first female president will get the job by becoming vice president first. I read the other day that Louisiana Senator mary Landrieau is on all the Democratic candidates short list of V.P. possibilities this year.

By the way, many historians believe that America has already had a gay president- James Buchanan. Buchanan, who was, unfortunately a disasterously bad president, served from 1857-1861. As a young man, he was engaged to be married, but his fiance abruptly broke off the engagement, and shortly afterwards, committed suicide. No comprehensive explanation for her actions was ever given. Buchanan wrote a long sealed confessional statement, to be opened after his death, but many years later, he changed his mind and destroyed it. He went on to live the rest of his life, including his time in the White House, with a "male companion."
 
Back
Top