Massachusetts High Court Rules In Favor of Gay Marriage

The difference is the language and potential legislation. For example, if we allowed marriage between hetero and civil unions between homosexuals, it would be an easy matter for a legislature to pass laws that affect one or the other. The whole "separate but equal" thing could go the way of the dinosaurs as soon as a legislature decided that married couples deserve, for example, a tax break that a couple in a civil union don't get.

Besides, the IRS wouldn't be legally obligated to recognize a civil union in the same way that they recognize marriage. Therefore, a civil union would not provide the same benefits as "marriage." This means that the two would be separate and treated differently, not separate but equal. This is the reason for the unconstitutionality, because "separate but equal" just plain isn't equal.

Actually, marriages can be performed by JPs, ordained ministers, captains of ships, and in a large number of contexts other than a church. We would not force the church to perform marriages between homosexuals if they don't want to, but there are plenty of churches out there that are perfectly OK with gay marriage and you would think that these churches would perform the lion's share of homosexual marriage ceremonies.

 

How in God's name will this make it harder to govern polygamy? If we define marriage as a union between one person and one other person, doesn't that definition cover it?

I am truly sorry that you consider homosexuality "aberrant behavior," (that opinion is why some people see you as bigoted) but the fact remains that these people love each other and want to commit to spending the rest of their lives together. How does this "weaken the institution of marriage."

 

Only Judges/Justices and priest/ministers can perform marriages. The ability of captain of ships to perform marriages is just an urban legend.

 

This ruling by the activists on the Massachusetts high court really brings to light a very bad issue for John Kerry. As you well know, John Kerry vehemently *opposes* gay marriages. He thinks that they are wrong. This appears to be in direct contrast to the many liberals who have posted in this thread. Obviously, being pro-gay marriage is a political no-no, because a strong majority of people in this country oppose gay marriage. Does Kerry's stance represent his true feelings, or is he just pandering to voters?

How does a liberal reconcile this problem of Kerry denying people their rights?

 

I am pretty sure that they can marry when you are in international waters. I would appreciate a link regarding the urban legend, though. I looked at snopes.com and urbanlegends.com and was unable to find a reference.

 

excellent point.

 

How does a conservative reconcile the problem of the spending spree the Republican President and Congress have been on the past 3 years?

 

i don't really like it, but it's not the issue we're discussing here. do you have an answer?

 

I assume that the point andy was making was that it is unlikely that you are going to find a complete synonomy with any prominent politician.

 

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/legal_requirements/index.shtml

9. Performance of a marriage ceremony with witnesses and a person recognized by the state to have the authority to perform marriage ceremony (such as a priest, rabbi or a judge).

A religious ceremony should be conducted under the customs of the religion, or, in the case of a Native American group, under the customs of the tribe. Religious ceremonies normally are conducted by religious officials, such as ministers, priests, or rabbis. Native American ceremonies may be presided over by a tribal chief or other designated official.

Civil ceremonies usually are conducted by judges. In some states, county clerks or other government officials may conduct civil ceremonies.
Contrary to some popular legends, no state authorizes ship captains to perform marriages.

 

But MacBeth, as you can see, this issue has stirred the liberals to action! You act as though this is an issue that they can simply look beyond. Something trivial. However, the liberals are passionate in their support of gay marriages. This seems like such a core issue. An issue that defines their political being! Yet they vote for a man who openly opposes gay marriage? Very very strange.

 

i understood the point- i'm just interested in his answer. rather than continuing to evade the issue, why not try and address it honestly?

 

A) Where did I suggest it was trivial?

B) Speaking for myself, I am accustomed to this, as my views on some keystone issues cross party lines, such as being opposed to both abortion and the death penalty. As such, I look for the other issues, and decide on them. To me the greatest issue facing us today is that of our frightening actions on the international scene, and our even more firghening willingness to turn a blind eye at home. As such, my primary goal is to get Bush out. Kerry would, as such, have my vote, even though I strongly disagree with him on this issue, and a couple others. But other people may have other priorities, such as government spending and the defecit...

 

But MacBeth, aren't there candidates out there that conform to your views on these issues? Dean.

 

There's nothing to reconcile on my end. Not one candidate is going to mirror my views and beliefs 100%, so I'm just going to pick the one that comes the closest. I don't like Kerry's view about gay marriages, but I'm pretty sure he'll still get my vote if it's against him and President Bush.

I also don't believe it's a core issue among most liberals. I hear more about the "sanctity" of marriage from conservatives/Republicans more than I hear how gay marriage is the issue of our time from liberals/Democrats. I think the Republicans simply want to make it a big issue to win over homophobes.

 

How in God's name will the current law make it harder to govern homosexuality? If we define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, doesn't that definition cover it?

 

Please note that my above post was made because I have come to the conclusion that it is against the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage or polygamy.

Since no one has been able to explain logically to me why one is ok and the other is not, I have also come to the conclusion that those that are for gay marriage and against polygamous marriage are hypocritical if they use terms like "bigot" and "small-minded" to describe those that oppose gay marriage.

 

The question t_j asked was directed at "liberals" and since I am centrist, I did not feel included. However, the point I was trying to make is that not all politicians have to be in lock-step with their party. In fact, I applaud his ability to break away from the party platform where it is in disagreement with his own beliefs.

 

i'm not down with homosexuality...you all know why.

my marriage will not suffer a bit because two men or two women are allowed to get married. the argument that somehow this is an attack on my marriage is utterly ridiculous, and i'm tired of hearing it.

again...and i got ragged on last time I said it...I think Christ would say, when asked, "Ummmm...what's the divorce rate for heterosexuals in this country? Tell ya what...let's worry about that first, and then we'll talk about your defense of this institution." Certainly not something for the rest of the nation to build policy on (so don't worry, MacBeth)...but that notion certainly resonates with me.