Holy shit!

Am I reading this correctly???

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...us/gay_marriage

Edited to add the story's lead:


[ February 04, 2004, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: The B Man ]

WOO-HOO!!

The text of the opinion.

[ February 04, 2004, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]

You're reading it correctly. when the Court originally decided the Goodridge case, some people speculated that civil unions might pass muster.

The Mass. Legislature crafted a civil unions bill, but before enacting it, asked the Supreme Court whether it would be constitutional under the intepretation the court had set forth in Goodridge. (such advisory opinions are standard, if uncommon practice in Mass and many other states. Federal courts are not allowed to issue such opinions).

Today the supreme court, by the same vote and with the same lineup as in the original case, said that civil unions don't cut it -- separate is inherently unequal, as it were.

This doesn't mean the battle ends. The legislature will now beign the process of trying to amend the Mass consitution to "help keep marriages sacred." That will take them two years, minimum, and that's assuming the voters will pass it twice. I have high hopes that the Commonwealth's voters will reject the proposed amendment.

In the meantime, though, marriages should start taking place in May.

Okay...where are the self-hating, anti-marriage guys? Bring 'em on!

...just in time for BostonGirl and me! We're planning on swinging thru Mass. after our Vermont civil union in July.

Ah, Gator Jamie, sorry to disappoint, but I'm afraid it's only Mass resident gays and lesbians who will benefit.

Any marriage contracted in Mass. by a non-resident who intends to remain non-resident, and which violates the public policy of the state in which they reside, is null and void. See Mass. Gen. Laws., ch. 207, sec. 11.

Since gay marriages are against the public policy of 49 other states right now, non-resident gays who flock here to marry may find a pastor willing to perform, and even a city clerk willing to issue a license, but it wouldn't be a valid marriage.

Of course, you two are always more than welcome to move here, to the home of the World Champion New England Patriots!

And mazel tov on your forthcoming VT ceremony.

[ February 04, 2004, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

But, there is going to be a constitutional convention next week where the Legislature will consider an amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Get ready for a shoot down guys courtesy of the damn bastards.

bobby, chill. read the thread (and news coverage) more carefully.

The amendment has to be passed in two straight legislative sessions before being submitted to the people, who have the final say on amending the Cosntitution.

The earliest the proposed amendment gets on the ballot is November 2006. There's a pretty good shot the amendment doesn't pass the legislature, and an even better shot that the voters here will reject it even if it does.

In the meantime, there'll be a solid year and a half for everyone to get married and show the people that it's not a big deal.

So marry up, people.

Skiguy is right - but that does not make next week's vote any less important. If the legislature rejects the amendment, it goes nowhere (although it can be reintroduced as often as they legislature wants), and gay marriages will begin.

Although polls have shown some degredation in the level of support for gay marriages in the state (from 50 - 51% to about 46%), I am happy to note the Democratic resolution against the amendment, and the work of the unions to support gay marriage (good counteract to the Catholic leadership). Nonetheless, I will be forwarding a message from HRC to all my friends in Mass (I'm a native in exile) to encourage them to contact their legislators to vote against the amendment.

However, even if the amendment squeaks by this time (I doubt it will be a landslide - too many legislators have already come out against it), by the next vote there will be gay couples marrying all over Mass, and that will (with any luck) convince people the sky will not fall and civilization will not collapse, so I would think the amendment would fail in the second legislative session.

And now, a counterpoint, from the Feb. 3 Advocate:
Civil unions: the radical choice
Frites anyone? wink

This is one reason anti-gay marriage fanatics are also fighting civil unions, because they fear that if civil unions become common they would provide another option for unmarried heterosexuals. Sweden has been used as a textbook example, though it's interesting that marriage as an institution appears to be dying out in several European countries--like Italy, for example, where the marriage and birth rates are quite low--where gay marriage or civil unions are not yet legal, and face stiff opposition from religious authorities.

Vive la France, long live Massachusetts!

That actually sounds very sensible. I've always thought a marriage license should be like a driver's license: renewable every 3 or 4 years. Unless both parties renew, they're automatically divorced.

I'm not the romantic type.

[ February 04, 2004, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Jerzoid ]

This is really amazing, and just another excellent reason to support John Kerry. We will have strong representation in the White House with Kerry. Go John Go!

CNN'S question of the day is "should your state follow Mass. lead with regard to gay marriage?"
Currently yes 57%, no-43%.

There's one other reason for getting married in Mass.

When the fundies get totally out of control, and you all wanna immigrate up here to the frozen godless commie north, your marriage is recognized, and only 1 of you needs to have a job. The other gets in, and gets a work visa, by default.

And while it was said with a wee bit of sarcasm, it IS totally true.

Except the frozen part. we do thaw out in August.

Boston.com survey: Do you agree that calling it something other than civil marriage is simply an effort to isolate same-sex couples from the mainstream of society?
Currently, Yes 67.9%, No 32.1% (Total votes 4770)
The 'phobes must not have gotten organized yet...

[ February 04, 2004, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]

But isn't he anti-gay-marriage, just like all the other Democratic candidates (except Braun, Sharpton & Kucinich)?

Shocker of the day:

On FoxNews.com......

To what extent should gay couples be legally permitted to commit to one another?

a. They should be allowed to marry. (10%)

b. They should be allowed to form civil unions. (19%)

c. Gay couples should not be legally recognized. (70%)

d. I'm not sure. (1%)


I wonder who their base audience is!? :confused:


On CNN.com:

Do you think your state should follow Massachusetts' lead on same-sex marriage?

Yes 40% 38895 votes

No 60% 59106 votes
Total: 98001 votes

Here's John Kerry's stance on the major gay issues......

From his website...

In my heart, I believe when push comes to shove, we'll be sold out. If it's between us and the presidency, we're done. BUT, I also believe there are candidates who are more inclined toward fancy manuevering and jockeying to either bar an amendment and/or push for civil unions. That's my hunch.

As far as I know, Edwards is anti-gay marriage. (see here: http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=370 )

Just cuz Kerry and Clark haven't said as much doesn't mean they're not (and maybe they have said they're not, and I just don't know it).

Info I'm sure you've all seen elsewhere, but posted here again for good measure:
http://www.socialworkers.org/pace/2004cand...tes/default.asp

Clark: http://clark04.com/issues/glbt/
Kerry: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/glbt/

If anything, the Mass residents will also see the economic boom from gays traveling to get married. Weddings aren't cheap, and even simple ceremonies or JP weddings will require hotel, food, and transportation.

I think if this ammendment get through the 2 sessions of the Legistlature, the voters will wisely see it as unfair.

But, now Ol' Shrub will have another reason to push for the federal ammendment. It's going to be a historic year, buckle up! eek!

Do people not read threads before they post? As I noted above, non-residents--straight gay or in between-- cannot marry in Massachusetts if their marriage would contravene the public policy of the state where they reside. (for example, Mass permits first cousins to marry; in many other states, such marriages are illegal. Under Mass. law, then, if you live in Illinois and want to marry your first cousin, you can't come here to do it).

Gay marriage is currently against the public policy of every other state. So if you're gay, and you want to marry here, you'll have to move here.

[ February 04, 2004, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

But just because it is null and void in the other 49 states (right now), doesn't mean there is no reason for out-of-state people to get married there.

1) If the state of your residence does follow the lead of Mass. and legalizes same sex marriages, the marriage then becomes valid, if I read that correctly. Then you could make the case that you have been married for X number of years already.

2) Making a statement. Even living in Oregon, I would find it kind of cool to think that in at least one state, I am LEGALLY MARRIED!

Yes I read it, do you not see that I was just putting a positive spin on this? So you're saying that the state will not even issue liscenses to out of state couples?

Vermont Civil Unions aren't legal anywhere else, but thousands have flocked up there for the certificate. Why wouldn't it be the same in Mass.? You are almost trying to discourage us from travelling there and spending our money on a certificate we desperately want. Who cares if my state recognizes it. I want it on my wall to show my family and friends. And I want to support a state that is willing to give me this.

[ February 04, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]

The dominoes are falling. The Supreme Court decision striking down the Texas sodomy law is going to be the basis to strike down all of the anti-gay laws in the books. It is only a matter of time before a gay couple married in Mass. will challenge the laws of another state to have their marriage recognized there. And with the Supreme Court decision setting the precedent, the anti-gay laws will be struck down. Gay marriage will become legal in every state eventually. The only thing that can stop it is a Constitutional Amendment. I am SICK of hearing Bush whine about "judicial activism". (Yes, that is coming from me, a conservative Republican). Our great Constitution allows for checks and balances between the branches of government. If the Executive and Legislative branches want to check the Judicial branch, let them try to amend the Constitution. It will not work! Can you imagine the consequences of changing the Constituion AFTER gay couples have already been mariied in Mass.? What are they going to do, suddenly say all the LEGAL gay marriages are now ILLEGAL again? I don't think so. Besides, every poll I have seen on the subject suggests that America is split 60-40 on this subject (60-40 against gay marriage). If that split carries on toward the Constituional amendment it will not pass; it takes more than 60% approval for it to go through. People are just going to have to learn to accept social change. Gay people are real, hard working, respected individuals with the same rights as anyone else. Public opinion is almost there. In about ten more years I think that 60-40 split will go the other way, with 60% of people being OK with gay marriage.

DenverFan, I don't mean to discourage you, but I do want you to be realistic.

It is possible that some city clerks will issue licenses to out of state same sex couples, and those couples will find a clerk or pastor willing to solemnize.

But even if they do, their marriages won't just be void in their home state, they will, under the statute I cited earlier, be null and void under Massachusetts law as well.

If the symbolic value is enough for you to go to the expense, then come one, come all, and more power to you!!

The hysteria in this part of the country over today's ruling is palpable. I can only smile...I'm more and more convinced every day that there are actually millions of straight men who think if gay marriage is allowed, they will somehow become sex slaves to big guys named Bruce!

Apologies, but I'd like to throw some cold water on this suggestion. Having never been "married", but having known many people who are (were), I think getting married for political purposes is a bad, bad idea. A lot of us still live in states where marriage rights may still be decades away. I don't want to be sitting here 10-20 years from now, trying to explain why so many gay marriages failed in Massachusetts in 2004-2005. Do you think two guys in their early 20s who have known each other for 6 months will still be married 15 years from now? I'd much rather see 1,000 gay couples get married and have a lower divorce rate than have 10,000 marriages with a higher divorce rate. I'm not saying "don't get married", I'm saying "don't get married for the wrong reason!!"

I don't disagree with you Sooner. I didn't mean to suggest that people should get married to amke a statement. I meant only to say that the many couples who have been waiting for this day now take advantage.

Thanks for clarifying Skiguy.

I know that it will not happen in Colorado for decades, if ever. So, I am more than willing to come spend my money in Mass. Maybe even head to Vermont.

I am not a California resident, but My partner and I registered there and proudly have our certificate framed on the wall with our family pictures. And interesting enough, even though it is not legally recognized here, it has served as a document we have used when asked by insurance companies, membership groups, and other matters to show proof of our commitment and the nature of our relationship. I even used it as an example that allowed my partner and I to get a spouse pass to the local rec. center when individual memberships would have cost more.

Thanks, big guy! When BostonGirl mentioned last night that it was only for Mass. residents, I suggested that we move in with her mom in Medford, where she was raised, to establish residency. wink I thought her head was gonna explode. eek!

Thanks for mentioning the "void if against home state public policy" angle, too. Here in Virginia, there was an assembly proposal that sought to criminalize couples who obtained civil unions in other states and asked them to be recognized in the home of Genteel Fascism ™.

Call me a Love Criminal. :cool:

Gangster of Love

Great album.

gj, meffa? don't do it!

you are welcome to declare residency with us in boston, or better, at the provincetown house. we'll throw you a reception. everyone's invited! rsvp regrets only to gator jamie.

There was a comment in the NYTimes this morning that apparantly in Wisconsin, not only will Mass. marriages not be recognized, but that gay couples from Wis that get married in Mass could be liable for criminal prosecution.

I will try and find the link to the article

Compassionate Conservatism?

Gimme a break!

:mad:

That Wisconsin stuff is crazy! Is it even possible??? Where are our legal experts? How can you be pursued criminally in your home state for doing something LEGAL in another state?

Legally they can't be prosecuted for getting married in Massachusetts. Wisconsin can choose not to recognize the marriage (as would be done by dozens of other states I'm sure), so the couple wouldn't be eligible for any rights that married couples are normally entitled to in that state. It's basically the same thing that would happen if a gay couple from NY got married in Amsterdam (where I think it's legal?)...NY would not recognize them as being married. Sad, yes, but this is how issues like this will get to the US Supreme Court.

Found the link. Here it is.

State legislators vow to pursue gay marriage ban

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2004/02/0 [...]

Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager said the Massachusetts court decision has no effect on Wisconsin law, which already bans same-sex marriages. Even if a gay or lesbian couple from Massachusetts married there and moved to Wisconsin, marriage laws here would prevail.
Furthermore, a same-sex couple from Wisconsin who married in Massachusetts to intentionally avoid Wisconsin law could face criminal charges if they returned here , she said.

Yeah, that's the part I just don't get:
Furthermore, a same-sex couple from Wisconsin who married in Massachusetts to intentionally avoid Wisconsin law could face criminal charges if they returned here , she said.

What's that about?
Is that legal?
I don't get it...

I think the Wisconsin AG was talking out her ass about criminal prosecution, possibly trying to win the Miss Sanctimonious crown.

I suppose if a gay couple from WI went to MA, got married, and then tried to file a Wisconsin joint income tax return based on the Mass. marriage, they could be prosecuted for tax fraud.

But merely for going to Mass and getting married? No way, no how.

Just wait until she finds out i'm sleeping on your couch for the next 2 months.....

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/20.../news/02gay.txt

The Wisconsin link, in all its glory.

Alright Bush apologists, ball's in your court. Bush Expected to Endorse Amendment Defining Marriage

I fear that the right wingers will see the Mass. decision as their Pearl Harbor and will do everything to mobilize their minions in politics and the church.

Time to take off the gloves, brothers and sisters. This will be one long, emotional battle.

I wonder if this MA. decision may be more harmful than helpful. I wonder if it's not too much too soon.

I often have believed that first peoples' hearts must be changed before their minds are changed, and I fear the latter is being done instead, and perhaps too quickly at that.

I don't say this to throw water onto the fire; rather, I'm just concerned that it's almost as if this whole thing is being shoved down America's throat too fast (no pun intended).

It often takes a lot of time to change the hearts of people, and this often results in people becoming frustrated and running full steam ahead with no thought of repercussions.

Scenario #1: MA. makes its decision. Yada, yada, yada, a constitutional amendment is ratified wiping this out and wiping out any and all other states' similar decisions or positions. We're worse off than we could have imagined. Time frame to such an amendment? Who knows? Maybe 5-10 years or so. But after that. It's over barring a repeal.

Scenario #2: MA. decision doesn't happen, or is set aside somehow. Instead, gays work on their state legislators, their federal representatives, and fellow Americans. They further embed themselves into the fabric of society. Maybe a couple more TV shows premier, and these show gays in a better light. Slowly, acceptance increases and those opposed to extended gay rights decrease in numbers. More persons on our side are elected to office. Civil unions, gay adoptions, and similar measures become more common, leading to actual gay marriage with much less opposition. Time frame for all this? Who knows? 10-20 years maybe. Not sure. But the end result would be far better and more positive than Scenario #1 above.

Just my opinion.

Yeah, I have the feeling too that this is going to end in grief. The fundies how have the argument that if America doesn't pass the federal marriage amendment, & soon, gay marriage will become a reality in America through "judicial fiat" or "activist judges" or whatever else they call it. So amid a wave of hysteria, the Republicans who are sponsoring the amendment will insist on bringing it to a vote soon. And if this gets to the state legislatures, we're in big trouble.

Interestingly, as W.'s poll numbers continue to sink & his re-election is increasingly in doubt, it increases the leverage of the social conservatives inside the Republican Party. Though the Republicans don't give a damn about us & our rights, I'm convinced that they would rather not have to dirty their hands with this type of campaign & would be content to throw a less divisive bone to the fundies. As long as the Bushies feel like they're coasting to victory, I kind of thought that they wouldn't push this marriage thing except for a little lip service. But if the election looks like it's going to be tight, & the difference between winning & losing is "firing up the base", then they'll walk all over us if that's what it takes to win.

Unfortunately for us, under this scenario, the Bushies will try to make the election about "values" in hopes of getting enough voters to ignore their declining standard of living. They'll slam John Kerry just for being from Massachusetts, regardless of his stated position on the question.

It's great what is happening up there, & in Ontario & B.C. too, but it would be quite foolish to underestimate the toxicity of this issue.

Re-defeat Bush in '04!

I was talking to a lesbian last night who was all, "f**k marriage" and "I don't need marriage to define me"...

I understand that marriage, as an institution, is of questionable merit. BUT, what we're talking about here is government legitimization of institutionalized DISCRIMINATION.

I totally understand the idea of "Wait a minute... are we ready for this?!???", but my gut and heart tell me The Time is NOW!. We've got to get something out of this, if not marriage, then civil unions and ENDA, or NO constitutional amendment.

We can't sit by and let the government sanction, or indeed ENDORSE, the subjugation of our community.

There's a part of me that also thinks that the Mass. decision is "too much, too soon".

But I'm afraid that such an attitude is way too passive.

It's time to hone up on our Constitution, take a gut check, and fight the powers (Church and State) that would forbid us (or anyone else) equal protection.

And that means getting in people's faces and explaining our side, with graciousness and tact and diplomacy.

Scenario #3: MA makes its decision, Bush and the right-wing scum howl in outrage and try to circumvent it, good people from all walks of life wake up, stop being hypocrites, stop falling for the lies and hatemongering of Bush and the right-wing scum and vote them out of office, same-sex marriages become legal and are recognized everywhere in the nation, the world doesn't come to an end.

Those who are against this so vehemently will never be persuaded to change their minds, and already are fighting like hell against it. So following the tactic of Scenario #2 will take much, MUCH longer than 20 years. What good is the right to marry after I'm dead?

Fight them. Fight them now. Fight them hard. Win NOW.

[ February 05, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

I'm ready to fight with everything I have, but this isn't anything close to a fair fight--we're way outnumbered. Equal marriage rights are absolutely worth fighting for, but in the short term I think it would have been better for the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court to give the state legislators a pass. Sometimes that is a problem with using the courts to advance a social agenda--that judges would render a decision based purely on the law & reason, without regard for the political consequences or context. It's possible--in this case probable--that we could win in the court of law & lose in the court of public opinion. If calling it "civil union" makes it more palatable to the masses, then I don't have a problem with that as long as it would convey rights equivalent to marriage. Once people see that no harm whatsoever comes out of it, oftentimes the objections will melt away. But until after November 2004, the less this is talked about, the better.

MIB, for once, I think I agree with you...lol

I want these rights so badly for myself and my partner. It's hard to sit back and think we are the ones who are laying the ground work and may not even live to see the fruits of our labors. We are a parallel generation to the African American Civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's. It took time, and a lot of those who worked very hard to make things better today, are not here to enjoy it. I want it to be a better future, and that may mean that I don't get to enjoy it, but I will help create equality for the generations to come.

As it stands now, I don't believe the government should be in the business of mandating a religious institution. The Government should issue Civil Unions to every couple Gay or Straight. Elliminate the word marriage from the government wording, and leave the word marriage to be a simply religious affair between people and thier individual church.

Radical and probably not realistic, but that's my take on it.

[ February 05, 2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]

Yeah, imagine that. I'm with Joe on this: it's not as if the right-wing scum are politically impervious in all this. They are, after all, the people who have to market themselves as "compassionate" to try and counter the fact that they're not. Show them to be the bug-eyed loonies they are and send 'em packing. I'm sick to death of Southern conservatives controlling discourse in this country and the sooner they're neutralized, the better.

And the idea of "let's wait until the time is right" is a maze. The time will *never* be right for a lot of people but f**k 'em, history moves on without people like them all the time. They WILL lose, they WILL get swept aside like the dinosaurs they are, the only question is: is it going to be now or in 20 years? Polls show that people 30 and under have a "What-EVER" stance on gay issues, so realistically, if we wait until they're in power, it'll be 20-30 years.