Mass. court turns over gay marriage ban

[Jobber of the Week 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex....ling/index.html

 

(CNN) -- Massachusetts' highest court ruled Tuesday that the state cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry and ordered the state's lawmakers to devise changes in the law within six months.

 

In a 4-3 ruling, the court stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the seven couples that challenged the Massachusetts law.

 

The ruling could set new legal ground, and drew quick reaction from advocates on both sides of the issue.

 

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney issued a paper statement saying he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and he would support an amendment to the state's constitution "to make that expressly clear."

 

"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 court's ruling said. "That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law."

 

Vermont is the only state in the United States that allows same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Vermont calls them civil unions, rather than marriage. California's State Assembly recently passed a domestic partnership law to provide similar benefits, but it stops short of allowing gays to marry. (States determine marriage laws)

Governor might seek alternative to marriage

 

Romney left the door open for some other way of recognizing same-sex couples.

 

"Of course," he said, "we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman."

 

Connie Mackey of the conservative Family Research Council criticized the ruling, saying it was "a clear case of the courts overruling the majority opinion of the people."

 

"If the will of the people has anything to do with it ... the people will throw out any legislator that upholds this ruling," she told CNN. "The culture has seen the family unit for thousands of years as one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children."

 

Mackey also urged passage of a federal constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages.

 

But Elizabeth Birch, director of the gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign, argued that the courts are not obliged to support a majority of the people.

 

"If not for courts, African-Americans would not have had the right to vote, women would not have the right to vote," she said. "The purpose of a constitution is to protect a minority group from the wrath of the majority.

 

"The majority of people understand that a government-issued civil license to marry is not a threat to anyone," Birch added.

Court used constitution as basis for ruling

 

The seven same-sex couples that sued the state for denying them marriage licenses argued the Massachusetts' constitution prohibits discrimination because of sex.

 

In its ruling, the Massachusetts court rejected arguments based on religious or moral grounds -- from either side of the contentious issue.

 

"Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach," the ruling said.

 

"The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry," the court said. "We conclude that it may not."

 

Opposition to gay marriage, survey shows

The U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to interfere in the ruling, which was made solely on the basis of state law and not brought into federal courts.

 

Gay activists say the American judicial system is beginning to catch up with modern society.

 

In June the Supreme Court ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. (Full story) On June 10, an appeals court in the Canadian province of Ontario struck down a ban on same-sex marriage.

 

But a majority of people surveyed in late October said gay marriages should not be legally recognized, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. According to the survey, 61 percent said no when asked whether gay marriages should be recognized as valid by law. Thirty-five percent said yes.

 

The poll, taken October 24-26, surveyed 1,006 people and had an error margin of plus or minus three percentage points.

 

The same poll showed sharp difference on the issue based on gender. According to the survey, 70 percent of men said no to legalizing gay marriage while 26 percent supported such unions. The survey showed that 53 percent of women opposed gay marriages, while 43 percent supported legalizing them. The question posed by gender had a sampling error of plus or minus five percentage points.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex....ling/index.html

 

Now this whole fight for an amendment ban gets interesting...

 

Also, why did I type "turns over" instead of "overturns"? Sigh..... I need sleep

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

For some reason I found it funny that Drudge had a "Mass. Court Strikes Down Gay-Marriage Ban" headline right above a picture of this...

 

[NoCalMike 0]

I still can't understand why it is so offensive to someone that they would even want to ban gay marriage. Like the gay guy down the street is decent, but somehow if he gets MARRIED, OH MY, END THE WORLD NOW.

 

Happy to see the ban overturned, but I am awaiting an ugly hateful fight over this decision.

[Guest MikeSC]

I still can't understand why it is so offensive to someone that they would even want to ban gay marriage. Like the gay guy down the street is decent, but somehow if he gets MARRIED, OH MY, END THE WORLD NOW.

 

Happy to see the ban overturned, but I am awaiting an ugly hateful fight over this decision.

This is, again, an issue that the court's SHOULD have left to the people.

 

You want to ENSURE resentment and major heat over an issue for many years to come? Pass it by judicial fiat.

-=Mike

...Who couldn't care less about gay marriage --- it's the principle of courts making laws

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I still can't understand why it is so offensive to someone that they would even want to ban gay marriage.  Like the gay guy down the street is decent, but somehow if he gets MARRIED, OH MY, END THE WORLD NOW.

 

Happy to see the ban overturned, but I am awaiting an ugly hateful fight over this decision.

This is, again, an issue that the court's SHOULD have left to the people.

 

You want to ENSURE resentment and major heat over an issue for many years to come? Pass it by judicial fiat.

-=Mike

...Who couldn't care less about gay marriage --- it's the principle of courts making laws

Yeah like that Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas decision. What were they thinking there?!?! It's not like the courts are supposed to determine the legality of actions based on interpretation of the state constitution (or federal in the Supreme Court's case). They're just there to say what the most people want to see.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah like that Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas decision. What were they thinking there?!?! It's not like the courts are supposed to determine the legality of actions based on interpretation of the state constitution (or federal in the Supreme Court's case). They're just there to say what the most people want to see.

Try more along the lines of Roe v Wade.

 

This is a decision that should have been left to the voters. The Courts in this country have had a history over the last 30 or so years of simply INVENTING laws where laws do not exist.

 

The Court should have simply stated "The passing of laws is the responsibility of the legislative branch, not us".

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Well I don't believe the court said anything about gay marriage so much as they were more ruling that it is unconstritutional for anyone to be denied certain rights/privelages based on sexual orientation alone. "marriage" is just kind of like the gateway to those rights, however if civil unions are equal to marriage in every way but the name, then that would be a step in the right direction.

[Vyce 0]

Yeah like that Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas decision. What were they thinking there?!?! It's not like the courts are supposed to determine the legality of actions based on interpretation of the state constitution (or federal in the Supreme Court's case). They're just there to say what the most people want to see.

 

You're ignoring the incredible firestorm that followed Brown - the states were pissed BEYOND belief at what they felt was the Court's stripping them of their own Constitutionally derived authority to make laws and thereby violating the very concept of federalism itself.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Guys, the Court isn't passing a law. They're not saying gay marriages are LEGAL. They're saying they aren't illegal.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well I don't believe the court said anything about gay marriage so much as they were more ruling that it is unconstritutional for anyone to be denied certain rights/privelages based on sexual orientation alone. "marriage" is just kind of like the gateway to those rights, however if civil unions are equal to marriage in every way but the name, then that would be a step in the right direction.

And they SHOULD simply rule that the legislature is REQUIRED to clarify their law.

 

Courts have usurped power for years now and it is a very disturbing trend.

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

I think the only thing the SJC here in MA did was rule what the wording of the MA Constitution allows. Because the Constitution reads that a civil union is two people that apply for a license that are approved are considered "married" in this state, they ruled that "people" does not mean a man and a woman, it can be two of either.

 

And for those wondering, there is no such thing as a legally defined marriage in MA, they all are considered civil unions.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think the only thing the SJC here in MA did was rule what the wording of the MA Constitution allows. Because the Constitution reads that a civil union is two people that apply for a license that are approved are considered "married" in this state, they ruled that "people" does not mean a man and a woman, it can be two of either.

 

And for those wondering, there is no such thing as a legally defined marriage in MA, they all are considered civil unions.

And the court SHOULD have requested the legislature to CLARIFY what they defined as a marriage.

 

Allow the PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVES to make the decision.

-=Mike

[Guest One Trick Pony]

This is, again, an issue that the court's SHOULD have left to the people.

 

You want to ENSURE resentment and major heat over an issue for many years to come? Pass it by judicial fiat.

             -=Mike

...Who couldn't care less about gay marriage --- it's the principle of courts making laws

Yeah like that Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas decision. What were they thinking there?!?! It's not like the courts are supposed to determine the legality of actions based on interpretation of the state constitution (or federal in the Supreme Court's case). They're just there to say what the most people want to see.

 

Owned

[Guest MikeSC]

This is, again, an issue that the court's SHOULD have left to the people.

 

You want to ENSURE resentment and major heat over an issue for many years to come? Pass it by judicial fiat.

             -=Mike

...Who couldn't care less about gay marriage --- it's the principle of courts making laws

Yeah like that Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas decision. What were they thinking there?!?! It's not like the courts are supposed to determine the legality of actions based on interpretation of the state constitution (or federal in the Supreme Court's case). They're just there to say what the most people want to see.

 

Owned

Wow, bringing NO content to 2 boards now?

 

Quick question (and this is serious): With the court's ruling, can something like polygamy be illegal in MA any longer? Going with the verdict, it has to be legal now.

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Polygamy is illegal due to the fact that it would contradict a previous civil union. Only one civil union at a time. You can't be named in two civil unions.

 

I think what the court did was not give a ruling overturning the ban of gay marriage, but state what is literally stated in the Constitution, which does not need to be done by the legislative branch.

 

I think what TheMikeSC is trying to find is that the definition of "people" was originally intended to mean a couple of a man and a woman, but because this is not the terminology within the Constitution, it can't be interpreted as such. In six months, licenses for civil unions will be legal for homosexual couples to apply for. Until an amendment is added to the Constitution, this will be the way it is. And considering the way MA runs itself, this amendment would not take effect until 2006, and would not be able to void out previous civil unions.

 

This ruling will be a focal point of the 2004 election.

[NoCalMike 0]

Anyone who wants a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage via adding wording to say marriage is reserved for one man & one woman rather then "two people" is a fucking jerkoff.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Courts have usurped power for years now and it is a very disturbing trend.

-=Mike

See: Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

[Jobber of the Week 0]

A constitutional amendment to make hitching up only for the boy/girl couples will have to receive approval from a majority of the states.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

The court is also supposed to be there as a check on legislative power and to protect our rights as citizens. Since Marbury v. Madison, they've had the legal right to interpret the Constitution (which they're CLEARLY doing in this case) and to overturn any statutory law (i.e. the gay marriage ban) that contradicts their state (or federal obviously for the SCOTUS) constitution. I'm sorry, what, exactly, were they doing wrong?

[Guest MikeSC]

Polygamy is illegal due to the fact that it would contradict a previous civil union. Only one civil union at a time. You can't be named in two civil unions.

 

I think what the court did was not give a ruling overturning the ban of gay marriage, but state what is literally stated in the Constitution, which does not need to be done by the legislative branch.

 

I think what TheMikeSC is trying to find is that the definition of "people" was originally intended to mean a couple of a man and a woman, but because this is not the terminology within the Constitution, it can't be interpreted as such. In six months, licenses for civil unions will be legal for homosexual couples to apply for. Until an amendment is added to the Constitution, this will be the way it is. And considering the way MA runs itself, this amendment would not take effect until 2006, and would not be able to void out previous civil unions.

 

This ruling will be a focal point of the 2004 election.

With the ruling, how can that be the case? How can you state that the previously illegal gay marriages ARE legal while polygamy is not?

 

Do you think this WON'T be an issue to be dealt with at some point? And, sadly, because the Court made the ruling, they might well have to rule for the polygamists.

 

Thing is, gay marriage is not widely popular. It really isn't. And rather than allowing the political process and debate to occur over it, they simply swoop in and say it is legal.

 

Courts should not be making law. This court did so.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Anyone who wants a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage via adding wording to say marriage is reserved for one man & one woman rather then "two people" is a fucking jerkoff.

No, a Court making rulings that SHOULD be made by the legislature is a problem.

 

If there is a major question as to what a law means, it should be the LEGISLATURE that clarifies it, not the courts.

-=Mike

[Guest FrigidSoul]

Only true weddings are done through the church, and the church won't allow gay and lesbian marriages.

 

Marriage is suppose to be a union under god, not under the Honorable Judge <insert name>

 

And that's as deep as I get religiously

[Perfxion 0]

Mike, so you are saying when a state or country makes laws that goes against the Constitution of either the state or the United States, that the Supreme Court can not shoot it down as being Un-Constitution? So by this logic, Jim Crow laws should have been delt by the states even though they go against the 14th Amendment. Knowing that most of these states would NEVER change these laws. So how the fuck is there a check and balance if the Supreme Court isn't allowed to do its job?

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Civil unions between homosexuals technically were NOT illegal under the state's Constitution. That is all the court ruled. The job of the legislature is to make law, while the judicial branch is used to interpret it. To quote from the United States Supreme Court: "As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law, and thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution"

 

Therefore, if the people of MA, my home state, wish to strike down the measure of civil unions between homosexuals, they would need to start writing to their representatives, who, in turn, would need to draft an amendment to the state's Constitution. If it passed, then it would be hard to see if it would again pass by the MA SJC.

 

Only true weddings are done through the church, and the church won't allow gay and lesbian marriages.

 

Marriage is suppose to be a union under god, not under the Honorable Judge <insert name>

 

And that's as deep as I get religiously

 

In Massachusetts, all "marriages" are considered to be civil unions. Anybody who passes the Justice of Peace exam can legally perform a ceremony. One can make it as religious as they want to, but it still is considered a mere "civil union" in this state.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, so you are saying when a state or country makes laws that goes against the Constitution of either the state or the United States, that the Supreme Court can not shoot it down as being Un-Constitution? So by this logic, Jim Crow laws should have been delt by the states even though they go against the 14th Amendment. Knowing that most of these states would NEVER change these laws. So how the fuck is there a check and balance if the Supreme Court isn't allowed to do its job?

World of difference between Jim Crow laws and this.

 

This is closer to Roe v Wade, which the Court had no business getting involved with.

-=Mike

[Perfxion 0]

Maybe a world of difference, but you are saying the Supreme Court getting involved in the law making(or disbanning) is wrong. So, by your logic, the case I pointed would be wrong of them doing it. Roe vs Wade isn't the Supreme Court going out of line, it proves that the US or no State Constitution had previsions for this. So they were not Un-Constitution. How is that stepping out of its duties?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

This is closer to Roe v Wade, which the Court had no business getting involved with.

-=Mike

Not even close, Mike.

 

Gay people are clearly being discriminated against with the law that was shot down. The law was contrary to the Mass. state constitution. The Mass. Supreme Court was well within their bounds in striking down the law, given Marbury v. Madison et al.

 

Unless you're arguing against Marbury, you've got no grounds on this one.

[Justice 0]

Courts have usurped power for years now and it is a very disturbing trend.

                    -=Mike

See: Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

Well, considering it is the only nationally elected official the Supreme Court does have some legitimacy to make a decision there.

 

Other than that, I'd have to say I agree with the decision. I honestly don't see a point in not allowing any more.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I saw polygamy mentioned above. Now that I sit here and think about it, why the hell is that illegal anyway?

[Guest Cerebus]

Well this has nothing to do with Maybury vs. Madison since this is about a STATE supreme court. I, personally, believe the court was well within its rights to strike down a ban on gay mairrage in MA since mairrage licences are given on the STATE not FEDERAL level.