Massachusetts High Court Rules In Favor of Gay Marriage

What is NOT equal protection?... not being able to call it marriage?!?!

Please tell me that there is something more substantial here for there to be all this hoopla.

Partners in civil unions get IRS deductions, hospital visitation rights, insurance benefits, survivor rights, and full legal standing as mates, etc. just as "marrieds" do, no?

What benefits do "marrieds" enjoy that "civilly-uniteds" do not? Is it something more than perception?

 

incestuous marriage is legal if the couple is sterile or incapable of having kids.

Wow, that is news to me. I need to get out more often

 

I have not delved into the specific differences currently (since I think no such differences should exist), but I do not think that they get the tax breaks, etc.

If you want to give them the same rights and recognitions that married people have, why play games and call it "civil union"? A minor problem with having different names is that gays can be denied things via legalese. Insurance company: "Our policy states that we pay any surviving spouses. You don't have a spouse since you are not married. Claim denied." Yeah, it seems like a silly example, but calling it two different names just creates legal loopholes that are unnecessary and can create abuse.

BTW, would those that support civil unions but not marriage call someone in a civil union "husbands" and "wives" and "spouses", or do those names need to change too?

 

This was the thing that threw my thinking into a loop. I was in the same boat as twhy, saying "if you can change the definition of marriage to include gays, why not others - incest, polygamy, etc?" Not that I was equating the two, I just didn't know what would prevent that if gay marriage was legalized. Once I read that, my current thinking fell into place and I have not yet run into any logic problems.

 

Heres what I pulled from a article:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/02/05/sjc_affirms_gay_marriage/

 

giddyup: Turn it around. Why is it important to deny gays the word? The word has deep meaning to gays and straights alike. Yes, various elements of marriage remain intact under civil unions, but the spirit of it is demeaned by the denial of the word. Owing only to a quality like sexuality (or gender or race or some other quality), would it be okay to tell someone they would have all the benefits of graduating high school or college, but could not call it that? While everyone else "graduated" they would have "fulfilled their requirements." While everyone else votes, they would "register an opinion." I admit the analogies get squishy here as we all have a "right" to vote in this country (well, now, anyway), but there is no clear right to marriage. There's no clear right to a college education either, but there is one to equal protection under the law. I believe in the separation of church and state and I believe a church has the right to decide whether they will perform or deny gay marriages, but the state does not. What is allowed for one set of people should be allowed for another. Neither gender nor race nor sexuality should create tiers within education, military service, voting, employment or marriage -- in the eyes of the law. Seperation is not and can not be equal.

I don't think you're a b*stard and I don't think your parents would appreciate being told they weren't married because their wedding was not performed by a cleric of some sort. If gays and lesbians want to have this argument with their priests or rabbis or whatever, that's fine. But that's not the fight they're having now -- or at least it's not the one we're having. They are fighting for equal rights and equal protection under the law -- the same kind your parents would probably want if they were told they were not married but only civilly united.

To the question of Kerry:

Yes, his position on this does bother me. Dean's did too. It was the same position. Sharpton came the closest to my feelings on the issue when asked if it should be left to the states. He said that guaranteeing civil rights to all Americans was too important to leave to discretion and he characterized this issue as a matter of civil rights. I agree with him. Of course, Jorge is doing his usual dance trying to deflect attention from the war and the economy and health care and education and social security and taxes and everything else where Bush is polling low to replace it with a divisive issue like gay rights where Bush is polling high. There are more homophobes in this country than there are gays (or at least out gays) and people sympathetic to their cause. Kerry is neither stupid nor politically brave. Nor stupid. Allowing the GOP to make this a major issue would be to cede attention to all those other important issues that Americans care about more and on which the president loses. So Kerry picks the "moderate" position, which I actually think is bad for everyone just like don't ask don't tell was. But does that make me (or anyone else who thinks this is a serious issue) vote for the homophobe-in-chief? Don't be ridiculous. Public opinion is trending in the right direction, but it's not there yet. And if "activist" judges, having been presented with a case, choose to interpret the Constitution in a way which might be out of line with public opinion but which they believe to be the right thing according to their charge, I say more power to them.

The right not to be free from discrimination is not a "special right." And the argument between gays and anti-gays is not a fair fight. One's fighting to have as much respect, dignity and access to a fundamental institution as everyone else and the other's fighting to deny it. We've seen this fight with women and with minorities before. We know it's ugly, we know people pay a political price for doing the right thing and we know it's worth it. We also know how it turns out in the end. And for that I say God Bless America.

 

Batman Jones: wow. Round of applause!

 

where'd you get that??? i've never heard that before.

 

I was reading a bunch of court cases when this topic came up last time (actually probably several times ago) on this BBS. No one would answer or consider my questions about polygamy (I was called a few names myself) so I looked around. I didn't bookmark it since I was just looking for myself. I'll try to find it again when I get home tonight.

 

I think it's only in Oklahoma...

 

I think it's only in Oklahoma...

or West Virginia. There is a joke there somewhere

 

I agree. I'm not denying, but I don't think this case is about legitimate use of the word "marriage" is it? What the hell is it about.

Buzz did some good research which seems to me that this is a ruling of statement rather than one of consequence. Am I still missing something?

 

Did you read my post?

 

My opinion (much of which has been expressed elsewhere, but a summary post can't hurt):

First, this decision covers the legal/civil aspect of marriage only. There is no possibility of any government (local, state, or federal) forcing any church to recognize (or refuse to recognize) gay marriage. Forcing gay marriage in the churches would be a violation of the separation of Church and State and thus would be unconstitutional.

Second, as a legal institution, marriage conveys certain legal benefits upon its participants. These benefits are in place SOLELY to encourage stable relationships (which in turn, foster stable communities). By denying gays these legal benefits, the government is essentially disenfranchising them. Thus, they are not equal in the eyes of the law.

Now, some people may ask, "If we allow gays to legally marry, how does that prevent bestiality, polygamy, bigamy, or incest?" Well, here is the catch in equal protection - the government may deny individuals any Constitutional right if (and this is the big 'if') there is a compelling policy reason to do so. In the case of bestiality, polygamy, bigamy and incest, there are compelling policy reasons to ban them. For example, bestiality and bigamy are banned due to a lack of consent (animals can't consent; men/women who are unaware of another, secret spouse are not making an informed consent), incest is banned for health reasons, and polygamy is banned due to problems that arise out of child care and division of property (especially if a polygamist dies without a will). Thus, there must be a compelling policy reason behind banning gay marriage in order for it to be constitutional.

So far, nobody has established any policy reason for banning gay marriage. As many have noted, heterosexuals are doing enough damage to marriage , so the idea that homosexuals will somehow tarnish the institution is ridiculous. Tradition is something to consider, but on its own, does not outweigh the concept of equal protection. You can't argue religious laws for obvious reasons. In fact, if you agree with my view re: marriage benefits (that marriage exists to promote stable relationships, which thus benefits the community), you can actually argue that banning gay marriage is bad policy.

As for the process, I know many people would prefer to see this issue decided by legislatures. But if these issues could only be decided by a legislature, then governments could pass all kind of unconstitutional, discriminatory laws without fear of reprisal. However, the founders recognized this and thus created (a)Constitutional rights and (b) judicial review (which was then really established by Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison). It's the whole checks-and-balances thing that's the basis of our 3-part government.

I understand why some people are perplexed about the distinction between marriage and civil union. As I believe andymoon said, creating two separate legal categories for essentially the same institution leaves room for all kinds of legislative mischief (i.e. marriages are entitled to tax breaks, civil unions are not). As we saw with race relations, separate is inherently unequal (for a better explanation of why, see Brown v. Board of Education) because it stigmatizes one of those groups as somehow lesser than the other. A separate category for gay marriages is thus incompatible with the concept of equality.

My solution is somewhat similar to Rocket Rivers - remove the concept of marriage from the legal realm altogether. All people (hetero and homo) are allowed to form civil unions, which then gives everyone the same legal rights. If gays want to change the Church, that's their prerogative, but they can't rely on the government to do so.

 

subtomic- another wow. Fantastic post. This is a great thread.

 

Unbelievable! I was thinking the exact same thing. Actually, I was using the modifier 'hardcore.' But still...

 

It's only legal for first cousins or those farther removed, not siblings or parent/child. I know it's the law in Wisconsin and several other states, not sure how widespread.

 

I'm sure I'd like you fine if I got to know you a little.

 

IRS? no
hospital rights? if you're in a state that supports civil unions maybe
insurance benefits? at the companies' discretion.
full legal standing? no

 

Are you telling me that anyone who gets "hitched" in a civil ceremony doesn't enjoy these rights/benefits? My parents did. They were not "married" in a church.