Massachusetts High Court Rules In Favor of Gay Marriage

Originally posted by Batman Jones

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.

<b>I don't know how legislation can reach into people's minds and change the way they think about this. If someone doesn't want to think about two guys or two gals being married he just won't, but that wouldn't make them any less married in the eyes of the law. Isn't the important thing to have a legal union. Seems like that is what really matters. Forcing people to think about it differently won't work and is not worth the effort.</b>

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.

<b>Separation is a right held by the church but not by the state. They do not have to perform any marriage if they don't want to. Heck, some if not all denominations will not perform the wedding of a heterosexual couple if they don't want to. It happened to me! I was divorced for about 5-6 years when I wanted to marry again. The church I was attending would not allow second marriages. I couldn't use the church. I couldn't use the pastor in another place. I left the church. I got re-married.

Should I have gone to the Supreme Court? I don't think so... and I didn't.

Does marriage performed by a church authority have a more legitimate standing than a union performed in a civil ceremony? There is no real legal distinction between a sacred marriage and a profane one. This seems to be an attempt to appropriate a word that has a particular connotation due to association with organized religiosity.</b>

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.

<b>I'm glad I'm not a b*stard. I'm fine with gay unions. I just don't want churches and synagogues to be forced into performing marriages.

Maybe we just have a definitional problem.

I have two terms in mind:

Civil Union -- a legal union of two people performed civilly for the purpose of making a "family"

Marriage -- a legal union of two people performed religiously for the purpose of making a "family"

In my mind and to my understanding, they both have equal standing under the law. The issue really is this: should homosexuals be allowed to "civilly unite" in any state in the union and should they be allowed to "marry" in churches that won't prohibit such a union.</b>

 

QUESTION: Are we ready to let the folx in Utah have multiple marriages too?

Rocket River

 

Good question, but add incestuous and other abberant behavior to this list.

 

My question is not that it does not cover it . .. but SHOULD IT?

What is the cheif argument AGAINST Polygamy?

Why should someone NOT be allowed to marry as many folx as they want? or can afford?

Rocket River

 

that is discrimination against Polygamist Families

you might as well say no welfare for Gay Marriage families

do you see where this will go . . . .

Rocket River

 

some would argue
that civil unions would mess up kids mentally
[Gay couples adopting is next on the list]
Will we outlaw this?
Will we have the STERILIZED?

The thing is . . . .like I said. . .an Argument can be made. . .
I'm not saying it is a good one.

Rocket River

 

No, because the church has the right to marry who it wants to marry and to refuse who it wants to refuse. I support gay marriage, but I would not support forcing churches to perform those marriages. As has been pointed out, there are already hundreds if not thousands of churches, reverends, ministers, JPs, and even priests who would perform those marriages of their own free will.

 

I don't think they get IRS deductions as the federal government does not recognize marriages. They may get some other benefits depending on how the law in their state is written, but the point is that they do not get all of the protections of marriage. They deserve all the benefits of marriage that my wife and I enjoy.

 

Good question, but add marrying outside of your race or class level to this list.

 

I don't know if we are having semantic difficulties here, but my mom and dad eloped and were married outside of a church in a civil ceremony. THey enjoyed 53 years of tax advantages and spousal benefits.

If gay are permitted to have such unions, won' that be good enough?

I don't think that terms are being defined very well here. I'm looking at marriage as being a legal union to create a family with a religious template laid over it. Is that what you are talking about or are you talking about something else entirely?

 

The difference is between a physical certainty - you will always dilute the gene pool in incest, usually quite the opposite in gay marriage - and a possibility of psychological problems. I don't think this is any different than the problems associated with people of one race adopting people of another race.

How exactly would you hypothesize an argument that it would mess a kid up mentally? The arguments I can think of would include "parents are different than typical parents" (the change from a typical nuclear family of the 50's now includes kids raised by grandparents, aunts and uncles, one mom, one dad, etc) and "parents may impart gay lifestyle" (what I think opponents really fear). However, since the "gay lifestyle" is not necessarily evil or inherently a problem for society, I don't think a reasonable court would go with this logic.


MadMax, I didn't have time to search for that site last night.

 

Giddy, if I'm not mistaken, the church/religious ceremony has no bearing on whether a hetero couple gets married. If they elope and are married in a courthouse by a judge, or a chapel in Vegas, or a huge Catholic Church in New York, they are still married in the eyes of the law - not "civilly united". They still have to sign a marriage certificate. Gays do not have this, they would sign a 'civil union' certificate.

 

As I said earlier, any behavior (aka personal liberty) can be curtailed if there is a compelling state interest to do so. For example, we are entitled to free speech, but would be arrested for yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. Why? Because such a situation could easily lead to a stampede in which people could be harmed. Thus, safety and the public good are the compelling state interests.

We have banned incest, rape, bestiality, bigamy and polygamy because of such compelling reasons.

Incest - Health reasons

Rape - Lack of consent

Bestiality - lack of consent

Bigamy - (when tried, it is usually because a man has two different wives in two different states, and neither know about each other) - Lack of informed consent (wives would not consent to marry husband if they knew about the existence of each other)

Polygamy - I will admit that finding the compelling state reason for this is difficult. My understanding is that polygamy remains outlawed because of the tremendous problems it would create in the division of property (especially if there was no will, but even a will can be challenged in court) and child care (in the case of a divorce between one wife/mother and the husband, where another wife is the primary caregiver of the mother's child). I would actually be interested to see a polygamy case make it to the Supreme Court.

Homosexual marriage - Can anybody outline a compelling state reason?

 

Okay, thanks. I am for the rights of gay pesons to be "married." I just don't want the churches to be compelled to perform these ceremonies if it violates theri doctine, by-laws, whatever.

I guess I'm still confused as to what constitutes a civil union. I interpret it as a marriage outside of the stamp of the church. My understanding was that the pastors and ministers were empowered to perform the legal act of union just as some other people are (but not ship captains!).

 

DOn't think there's much danger of that.

Catholic churches are still free to refuse to marry divorced people.

 

you said civil union not civil ceremony. two different things.

 

Yeah. So what is the deal now? Gay people can have civil ceremonies that have little or no legal standing but ceremonial meaning. And they want civil union. Give it to them.

 

giddyup:

I actually think we're in agreement and are just hung up on a couple things.

Like I said before, this is not about forcing any religious entity to perform marriages they don't want to. Think about it like this instead: it is about allowing them to if they do want to. Right now if a priest (or JOP or rabbi or Vegas drive-thru) is willing to marry a same-sex couple, every state but Massachusetts will say no -- you're not married. And if I understand it right, every state but Vermont will say you're not engaged in a civil union either.

This debate is about first recognizing a marriage and second calling it that -- like your parents did. And, in the case of your parents, the government called it that too.

The civil union versus marriage debate actually has nothing to do with religion, in this context, though you're certainly right to frame the distinction that way historically. In this situation the question is, assuming we will allow a union at all (and you've been clear you're okay with that), what will we call it? Your parents were married in a non-religious ceremony, mine were married in a religious one. Your parents and mine were both married in the eyes of the law. Gays and lesbians want the same right. As for who will perform those ceremonies, the government would force any government agency that performs weddings to allow the same rights for gays that they do for straights. They do not currently decide who a church will be compelled to marry and no one is proposing a change there. As I said above, there are currently religious entities who are willing to perform same-sex weddings. The problem there, right now, is that the government refuses to recognize them.

Those who argue that, because marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, any union between same sex couples cannot be called marriage are arguing before the law not before any church. And when they argue that, they seek to deny gays and lesbians the right that your parents enjoyed. I don't get from you, anywhere in this thread, that you're for that.

Am I right to understand that, when the smoke clears, we're in agreement?

 

How does the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 fit into all of this?

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9609/10/doma/index.shtml


WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Sept. 10) -- On an 85-14 vote, the Senate today gave final congressional approval to a measure that denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and lets states ignore same-sex marriages licensed in other states. (Clinton did sign this Act into law)

...
The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage in federal law as a union between one man and one woman.
...

The measure allows states to legalize gay marriages within their borders, but states would not be obligated to recognize such marriages performed in another state.

--------

I don't understand how this Act is constitutional given the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" discussed earlier.

 

as more than likely unconstitutional.