Mass Supreme Court: "civil unions" not good enough

[Guest Cerebus]

Mass. High Court Rules for Gay Marriage   

 

By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer

 

BOSTON - 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.

 

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.

 

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 (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites), 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.

 

Over 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

 

So this was the Mass Supreme Court clarifiying that when they ruled that it was unconstitutional (by state not federal constitution) to prohibit same-sex unions what they really meant to say that it was unconstitutional not to give them full mairrage rights. So this isn't a seperate ruling per se, its an opinion making what they did in November more clear.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Good ol' checks and balances...

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Gotta love judges dictating public policy.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mass. High Court Rules for Gay Marriage    

 

By JENNIFER PETER, Associated Press Writer

 

BOSTON - 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.

 

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.

 

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 (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites), 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.

 

Over 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

 

So this was the Mass Supreme Court clarifiying that when they ruled that it was unconstitutional (by state not federal constitution) to prohibit same-sex unions what they really meant to say that it was unconstitutional not to give them full mairrage rights. So this isn't a seperate ruling per se, its an opinion making what they did in November more clear.

Gee, the judiciary isn't TOO imperial, I suppose.

 

Man, an amendment MIGHT be necessary at this rate.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

Fuck power hungry judges. YOU DON'T MAKE THE LAWS. God. Civil Unions are a perfectly fair compromise...

[C Dubya 04 0]

I don't think that they're "making laws". They're interpreting the State's constitution, which is their purpose.

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't think that they're "making laws". They're interpreting the State's constitution, which is their purpose.

When they say gay marriage must be legal, they are making law.

-=Mike

[C Dubya 04 0]

Yeah, but they're interpreting the constitution, not writing laws. I think that there is difference there.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah, but they're interpreting the constitution, not writing laws. I think that there is difference there.

They are inventing a law out of nothing. It is no different than when they legalized abortion. They aren't saying that this particular thing is illegal. They are saying that this MUST be done or it is illegal. There is a difference.

 

Courts have, for roughly 30 years, run rampant over areas they have no business getting involved in.

 

And, yes, I'm aware this will bring up the inevitable Bush v Gore bitch sessions, but I am in no mood to even argue that moot point any longer.

-=Mike

[C Dubya 04 0]

And, yes, I'm aware this will bring up the inevitable Bush v Gore bitch sessions, but I am in no mood to even argue that moot point any longer.

-=Mike

Hey, I agree that it's time to let that one die.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

This is exactly like the partial birth abortion ban. The ACLU actually had a judge picked out to call it unconstitutional within hours of it being signed. This is a judge dictating his will on the people.

 

This is so stupid at this point. Barely anyone has a problem with civil unions but it's just not enough to please people. They have to go the route to piss everyone off.

[Guest FrigidSoul]

I still believe Marriages are a union under god and we all know that Church and Government are not affliated. Thus if the church doesn't want to allow gay couples to marry then tough noogies. I'm not saying whether or not the church would be right, I'm just saying its ultimately their choice.

[C Dubya 04 0]

I still believe Marriages are a union under god and we all know that Church and Government are not affliated. Thus if the church doesn't want to allow gay couples to marry then tough noogies. I'm not saying whether or not the church would be right, I'm just saying its ultimately their choice.

If you go with this philosophy, you open up a whole new can of worms. You would have to change all of the tax laws for marriages, because they're church things, not governmental not to mention countless other things, such as automatically giving a surviving spose the deceased possesions in the event there is not a will.

 

Marriages are already a governmental entity as well as a church one.

[Guest FrigidSoul]

Then they get married by a justice of the peace but their union will never be observed as being under god. Government can't change the bible.

 

I'm also not a religious person.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

And, yes, I'm aware this will bring up the inevitable Bush v Gore bitch sessions, but I am in no mood to even argue that moot point any longer.

-=Mike

And so being the oen to bring it up will prevent it... how?

[Perfxion 0]

Well since it is a govermental entity and by MA law it says any two PEOPLE(not man and woman, not woman and woman, not man and man) it is well within the right of the judges to state that banning gay marriages in the state of MA as UN-Constitutional. It is ILLEGAL ONLY IN MA for gay marriages not to be allowed.

 

Judges are within law to make a ruling based on the lawbooks and constitution of the state(either Country or State, doesn't matter in the case). They can not make new laws, just denouce or enforce said rules. IE: Grandfather clause being UC because it violated the 15th amendment. Seeing that NOWHERE in the Constitution speaks on the subject gay marriage, either it falls under the 10th amendment, being that it is only a STATE issue(Roe vs Wade should have ruled this way) or it is denouced since congress doesn't have the power over this issue. That being said, I just hope it stays a state issue.

[C Dubya 04 0]

Then they get married by a justice of the peace but their union will never be observed as being under god. Government can't change the bible.

 

I'm also not a religious person.

Well yeah, that's all that gay people want. They don't want to be recognized by the church, just by the government. It's not the union being recognized by God that they are striving for, it's equal protection of the law.

[Vyce 0]

Yeah, but they're interpreting the constitution, not writing laws.  I think that there is difference there.

They are inventing a law out of nothing. It is no different than when they legalized abortion. They aren't saying that this particular thing is illegal. They are saying that this MUST be done or it is illegal. There is a difference.

 

Courts have, for roughly 30 years, run rampant over areas they have no business getting involved in.

 

And, yes, I'm aware this will bring up the inevitable Bush v Gore bitch sessions, but I am in no mood to even argue that moot point any longer.

-=Mike

Normative v. Positive law.

 

Normative law basicaly says that people have certain natural rights simply by the fact that they're human and that they exist. This is where the penumbra of privacy rights - including the most infamous of them, the right to an abortion - comes from. Positive law takes a more literal, textual approach to the issues - basically, what does the Constitution say? The Constitution never mentions privacy, let alone abortion, so is this really a right?

 

Neither normative nor positive is entirely wrong or right.

 

But yes, judicial activism is RAMPANT in our society today. From both the right and the left.

[EricMM 0]

Gay people already HAVE the religious right to perform a marriage ceremon, CDub.

 

There is no law POSSIBLE that could actually prevent a man and a women or a man and a man from getting married in god's eyes.

 

All that these laws disallow are the few rights a married person has when it comes to their spouses stuff, and visitation etc.

 

I think the govt should remove the words "marriage" from it's laws, and replace it with "civil unions" obviously between two people. Let people go to church to get married and court houses to have unions. Let them do this on the SAME DAY if they want to.

 

But I guess I'm just a secularist trying to ruin this country.

[Perfxion 0]

Or as Spice would say, PRIVATIZE MARRIAGE. Get the goverment out of it and problem sovled. Saves court cases, saves protest, keeps it in the eyes of Los Vegas and the Church.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

They are inventing a law out of nothing. It is no different than when they legalized abortion.

 

Uh huh Mike.

 

It's not like Roe v. Wade struck down laws against Abortion. Nah. It's not that simple.

 

Nope. To strike down laws, they just made more laws.

 

It's not like the fact that you can't have laws banning something, which makes it legal, would be enough. Instead, the court somehow passed new laws.

 

Any laws you care to cite as being invented by the USSC via the Roe v Wade decision? or in the case of this?

[Guest MikeSC]

They are inventing a law out of nothing. It is no different than when they legalized abortion.

 

Uh huh Mike.

 

It's not like Roe v. Wade struck down laws against Abortion. Nah. It's not that simple.

 

Nope. To strike down laws, they just made more laws.

 

It's not like the fact that you can't have laws banning something, which makes it legal, would be enough. Instead, the court somehow passed new laws.

 

Any laws you care to cite as being invented by the USSC via the Roe v Wade decision? or in the case of this?

The Supreme Court forced states to legalize abortions, then stripped away ANY attempts to limit anything. Heck, according to the Roe v Wade decision, states had considerable leeway in controlling abortion in the 3rd trimester --- now, partial birth abortions are legal, a clear violation of that.

 

The ONLY group who can pass laws is the legislature. The Supreme Court invented a right to privacy (read the Constitution and tell me where it is) and then allowed numerous things because of the invented right.

Well since it is a govermental entity and by MA law it says any two PEOPLE(not man and woman, not woman and woman, not man and man) it is well within the right of the judges to state that banning gay marriages in the state of MA as UN-Constitutional. It is ILLEGAL ONLY IN MA for gay marriages not to be allowed.

 

Judges are within law to make a ruling based on the lawbooks and constitution of the state(either Country or State, doesn't matter in the case). They can not make new laws, just denouce or enforce said rules. IE: Grandfather clause being UC because it violated the 15th amendment. Seeing that NOWHERE in the Constitution speaks on the subject gay marriage, either it falls under the 10th amendment, being that it is only a STATE issue(Roe vs Wade should have ruled this way) or it is denouced since congress doesn't have the power over this issue. That being said, I just hope it stays a state issue.

One little problem:

 

Marriages in one state are required to be accepted by all states. So, basically, gay marriage has been legalized throughout the country.

 

Keep in mind, VT's civil unions wouldn't pass muster with this court.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

The Supreme Court invented a right to privacy (read the Constitution and tell me where it is)

 

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm

 

"Is there a right to privacy in the Constitution?

 

Well, I searched my copy of the Constitution of the United States and I couldn't find the word privacy anywhere in the document. Does this mean the Senator is right?

 

I also searched the Constitution and I couldn't find the word marriage either. Does that mean I don't have a right to be married — that a so-called "right to marriage" was invented by some bleeding-heart liberal judge somewhere?

 

The Constitution also doesn't include the right to buy products from foreigners, or to have children, or to read a book, or even to eat food to survive.

 

How could the Constitution have overlooked such basic human rights?

 

Because the Constitution isn't about what people can do; it's about what government can do."

 

and here we go..

 

"The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

 

Amendment IX:

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Amendment X:

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

Now, where's the right to privacy?

 

It is clearly in those two amendments.

 

The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.

 

That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution."

 

but, that's just one point of view.. it was countering the Santorium POV on 'lack of sodomy laws -> man/dog marriage' statement.

 

The Supreme Court forced states to legalize abortions, then stripped away ANY attempts to limit anything.

 

and that's writing new law? just asking.

 

partial birth abortions are legal, a clear violation of that.

 

If i've been paying attention, it seems there's a bit of room to move on banning PBAs while keeping it constitutional. Anybody remember if they passed it and got it signed this year? I know they're considering it again.

 

The ONLY group who can pass laws is the legislature

 

and which laws has the Supreme Court passed? (note: overturning laws does not equal passing laws)

[Vyce 0]

They are inventing a law out of nothing. It is no different than when they legalized abortion.

 

Uh huh Mike.

 

It's not like Roe v. Wade struck down laws against Abortion. Nah. It's not that simple.

 

Nope. To strike down laws, they just made more laws.

You're doing exactly what you're accusing Mike of doing - oversimplifying the issue.

 

The situation regarding abortion and the Supreme Court is the same, in many ways, as is the situation in MA now - the court has ruled a law unconstitutional.

 

Did they specifically write new laws? No, but that decision leaves the legislature with no other option but to rewrite the laws. It happened with Roe, it's going to happen with MA - they MA legislature either has to rewrite the constitution to include gay marriage or rewrite it to exclude them specifically.....but then the court has already shown that it won't stand for that.

 

Thus, in a somewhat circuitous way, the court is making the law rather than just interpreting it, because they're leaving the legislative branch without any other options.

 

And Rob, for every article that you post stating that abortion or privacy rights are inherent in the Constitution, I could post another arguing that they're a total judicial creation that the Justices pulled out of their ass.

 

Like I said - postive law isn't necessarily wrong, but it's not necessarily RIGHT either.

[NoCalMike 0]

so after this court ruling, how long until W comes riding into town, guns blazing, ready to ratify the constitution all to hell to please his right to life and christian coalition buddies? Considering he did already threaten it in the State of the Union.

[Michrome 0]

There was no interpreting done here.

 

You can't possibly believe that the Massachussetts state constitution, a document that refers to the "great legislator of the universe", and speaks of the "duty" of everyone to worship god, was meant to provide for gay marriage. I'm sure John Adams, the very religious man who wrote it, would be shocked to find out that he really intended for gay marriage to be legal in Massachussetts.

 

Give me a break.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Then they get married by a justice of the peace but their union will never be observed as being under god. Government can't change the bible.

 

I'm also not a religious person.

This has never even been an issue. Some churches (such as the Quackers) already DO perform gay marriages from the religious, symbolic standpoint. Nor is any court saying that a particular church, parish, or faith must administer a gay marriage against their will. This issue is confined entirely to the secular, government-related marriage.

 

Being a moderate on this issue, I still think the best way to go would be a nation-wide conversion to "civil unions" for the legal sort of marriage, with actual "marriage" being a term left to religious groups to dish out.

[EricMM 0]

But HMW, if you tried to get people to do that, you'd get the reply "Marriage is an institution of American Culture, it makes us strong." A lot of people would think that removal of marriages to be replaced with civil unions would be saying IN OTHER WORDS that gay marriages are ok.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Hi everyone. I'll weigh on this, seeing as I work in the (Justice) Department. The Constitution as a document of a federal or state body is subject to either a strict or loose interpretation, with most judges falling in the middle.

 

This judicial activism everyone seems caught up about is nothing new. In the 1800s several instances were taken against the Mormon church including several federal rulings that 'clarified' or 'interpreted' law to ban polygamy. It was not until a federal (read: Supreme Court) ruling was in place that the conflict was somewhat abated, though persecution of mormons remained for many years thereafter, as well did polygamy practice.

 

Everyone has biases. We want things to go the way we do. What I call judicial activism someone else might call interpretation, and vice-versa.

 

Our Constitution specifically states "All men are created equal" and that all are to be equal under the law. Specifically targeting a group appears in my own interpretations to run counter to the claims made by our founding fathers.

 

Put more simply. Cases like this shouldn't even be in the government. The last institution we need deciding morals is the government. Think about the ones that have...they tend to go apeshit over time.

 

I often wonder why we tend to think only in terms of finiteness when supposedly ruled by the infinite. If it isn't a Godly marriage, then God knows, and they'll get it accordingly. Why worry so much about it here then? Or more specifically, what makes government think it can know more than anyone else.

 

Laissez-Faire people. Laissez-Faire.

[C Dubya 04 0]

Gay people already HAVE the religious right to perform a marriage ceremon, CDub.

 

There is no law POSSIBLE that could actually prevent a man and a women or a man and a man from getting married in god's eyes.

 

All that these laws disallow are the few rights a married person has when it comes to their spouses stuff, and visitation etc.

 

I think the govt should remove the words "marriage" from it's laws, and replace it with "civil unions" obviously between two people. Let people go to church to get married and court houses to have unions. Let them do this on the SAME DAY if they want to.

 

But I guess I'm just a secularist trying to ruin this country.

I'm a little lost as to your argument, but I think we're saying the same thing. A marriage can really be performed by anyone for anyone, but I think it's important to give gay couples the same protection under the law that straight couples have. It's not saying that someone is married that's the issue in my mind, it's recognizing the union by the gov't that is.