Outstanding News-Mass. High Ct. Rules Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

Yes, of course you can.

You can also oppose the Supreme Court of Mass. reading way too much in the Constitution when there is a perfectly good legislature to make gay marriage or civil unions legal.

Do people think this is good for a healthy democracy? Now we have talk of amendments by Republicans which will make gay marriage unconstitutional. This is what happens when you short circuit debate- we end up with all or nothing solutions, when most people would have supported something in between.

 

My grandmother used to be very adamant that it was wrong for people to date outside their race. She was equally adamant that she was not a racist. She just thought interracial dating was wrong.

 

this sounds like the abortion debate doesn't it? there are amny people who feel that roe v wade is bad law, and the question should have been decided by congress or the state legislatures. i wonder if this decision will spark the same type of division that has caused so much trouble in the abortion debate. will gay marriage become another litmus test that nominees to the federal bench have to pass before they can be confirmed?

fortunately, the court didn't impose a solution, and gave the legislature 6 months to find one. not that it really matters, as the question is undoubtedly headed to the US Supreme court soon.

 

Yeah, my grandma too. Born in 1895, she grew up in east texas, in the town of Choice, which has since disappeared. She later lived in San Augustine and Nacogdoches. She was as gentle an old soul as you could hope to meet, a strict southern babtist who thought drinking and dancing were wrong, and she stayed active and alert until she had a stroke at the age of 95. she died two years later.

Shortly before her stroke my brother and i visited her one thanksgiving, and while watching a game she made a comment about a black football player, using a variation of the "N" word. I'd never heard her say anything like that and called her on it. She said "Why, I'm not prejuduced, god loves 'em, jes like they's white."

I guess she was a woman of her time and place, but her racism was so deeply ingrained she didn't even know it was there.

 

Yes, that's exactly how I see it. It would have been much better for Mass. to pass it under the legislature like Vermont did instead.

 

I just got around to reading this and want to compliment everyone on a good thread that could have easily become a bad one.

 

Did Dubya have anything to do with that?

 

Your unappreciated mocking tone aside, let me address this since it was so woefully ignored the first time you posted it.

What we're working on at my place of employment (bargaining between our union and our administration) is creating a system where we recognize a legally domiciled adult and extend full benefits to that person. So, it could be a gay partner, a wife, or even one ailing grandparent who lives with you. I think it's very humane and a very good start. So, clearly, I am for drawing practical lines in the sand. No, health benefits cannot reasonably be extended to multiple non-directly-employed people. (Apologies to goophers and his many wives).

For what it's worth, the cost analysis of our potential new policy at my university is very encouraging. It should change our benefits outlay by less than 1% when all is said and done.

 

not sure he was born when it went gone with the wind. it was never more that about 20 people, essentially a red dirt crossroads near the LA border. there was a railroad sideing, and a Post Office/General store. My granddaddy was the Post Man. I remember driving around looking for the place one year w/ my brother and grandmother. we finally found it (near Center, maybe?) and pulled up to the old house they used to live in, which was now abandoned. a couple of mangy old dogs ran out from underneath the house next door, and some of the whitest, pointiest toothed people you've ever seen came out the front door. i was pretty disturbed, but grandma knew them, and in fact had sold them the house. as we drove away, my brother and i spontaneously started whistling the theme from "Deliverance!"

 

Sorry was just making a joke about Bush being anti-Choice

 

Those against gay marriage worry about the 'sanctity of marriage' and that gay marriages will somehow 'lessen' the meaning of a 'traditional marriage.' If their concerns are religious, they are probably right. However, civil marriages, and the recognition of common law relationships has long ago removed marriage from the sole governance of religion. It's highly doubtful churches will be 'forced' to perform gay marriages, in the same way that the Catholic church currently doesn't perform a marriage for those not of the Catholic faith, or who have been divorced, or had other lapses in judgment. RR questioned why the State is involved at all. After all, the State isn't involved in baptisms, bar mitzvahs, confirmations, or other religious ceremonies. So why marriage?

Well, somewhere along the line, we decided that the 'family' was a good thing. Somehow, we collectively benefit. We decided to reward and protect these arrangements in law, recognizing that often one spouse is at an economic disadvantage due to child raising responsibilities. So we drafted inheritance, tax (there are SOME benefits), and division of property laws to encourage and protect these arrangements. Benefit plans, and insurance arrangements were design with these families in mind. Now, it's true many of them fail, and that's why the maintenance and division of property rules are in place. And while the benefits are extended to families without children as well, I think it's pretty safe to say that the family, and child raising responsibilities are really the crux as to why the state is involved as much as it is. There is a cost to these benefits -- both to the taxpayer, through entitlements to social security benefits, and to employers through medical plan and insurance coverage -- so it's not exactly a moot point.

I think it's safe to generalize and say that most gay unions do not produce children. And therein lies the economic argument against gay marriage. There is no 'need' to protect these families to the same degree as the husband/wife family. They're just a couple of love bugs doing the dirty behind closed doors. Ewwwwww.

Unfortunately, it's not quite so simple. Some gay unions, do have children. Sometimes from previous relationships, sometimes through adoption, and sometimes through assisted reproduction techniques. Perhaps they are the minority, but, in my view, those families should be entitled to the same protections as the 'traditional' ones. So does that mean we extend the benefits to all? Well....I think yes.

But where will this lead? Polygamy? Incest? Rimmy and Rover, sitting in a tree...k..i..s..s..i..n...g? The debauchery.

I think Gene P pretty well addressed this. We do draw the line somewhere. The debate isn't whether to remove the line entirely, but rather where to put it. Right now there's strong consideration to include gay couples on the 'married' side. That's it. Other issues can be considered on their merits, should we choose.

But then room mates and friends will sign up for the benefits, won't they? Well...doubtful. Remember, with marriage, you get those common property, division of assets and other nifty things. I can't imagine why a gay marriage would be more susceptible to fraud than a non-gay one.

But the constitution...or it's up to the states....etc. Well, I admit, I'm not up on what those fellows wrote way back then, and I have no idea whether it’s a state of federal matter. I would hope it's not a state by state decision. Imagine the fun if a couple is considered married in California, but as soon as they cross over to Nevada, their marriage ceases to exist.

For those masochistic (bored/ pretending to work or study) enough to have read through my ramblings you'll see I am for recognizing gay marriage.

It seems absurd that someone who has been with a partner for years and years should have no say legally on issues affecting their 'life partner.' Under current arrangements, should a gay man fall sick, his parents have all the say on what treatments he gets, and on any arrangements should he die. Even if they have 'disowned him' because of his lifestyle. His 'partner' of many years has no legal input. And gay families (with children) do exist.

I think we have to recognize, however, that there's more to it than 'what's right' or 'respect.' There is a significant financial cost. In particular with medical and benefit plans. And the costs of treating HIV and Aids (which does affect a sad proportion of gay men) is astronomical.

 

So now YOU do not appreciate mocking anymore...

(unless it is done by yourself, of course )

 

Hmmm. No interest in derailing thread. Don't recall mocking you or most of the other regular posters... just the occasional newbie, friend, or arch enemy.

Aside from all this mock talk, what did you think of the actual answer I tried to provide to your question?

 

I understand it and it sounds like a good concept and actually, it indicates where a line can be drawn. However, out of curiosity, how does that address the issue of covering multiple children? Are they covered or not?

Also, I would like to say that I understand you might be sensitive as a friend of yours is directly affected. I actually did not choose the same words in that case to mock you, but to accentuate the parallel I believed existed, and to strengthen my point that the same concern could legitimately be brought forward for what I considered a similar situation. I did not mean to mock the situation itself or your friend or your concern for your friend - sorry if it came across that way.

Oh, and at least half of your post are mocking posts!

 

Each child can be added to a policy for a small added monthly charge I believe, up to an infinite number of children. But I'd have to double-check -- don't have kids... which is a good thing, because they'd be crushed by all the mocking.

 

Andrew Sullivan (conservative, Catholic, gay) has written extensively on this issue for some time now. Definitely worth reading.

Here is his take on some of the arguments agaist the ruling that have been advanced in this thread....

http://www.andrewsullivan.com

"POLYGAMY? So does this open the door to polyamory? Of course not. Heterosexual polyamorists or polygamists already have a meaningful right to marry someone. Gay citizens cannot meaningfully marry anyone. Homosexuals are uniquely discriminated against in one the most vital civil rights there is. There is a critical distinction between an involuntary sexual orientation and a choice of a polyamorous lifestyle - a choice that can be made by gays or straights. The rules that civil marriage currently mandate are exactly the rules that gay citizens want to follow. As the SJC puts it,
Here, the plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do not want marriage abolished. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity provisions, or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law. Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race. If anything, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to individuals and communities. That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit.
I've said it once, I'll say it a million times: this is a conservative measure. It brings an alienated minority into the fold of citizenship and common humanity. It makes - once and for all - sexual orientation a non-issue. As it should be.

JUDICIAL TYRANNY? Some, however, will argue that, even if all this is correct, the place for this debate is the legislature, not the courts. That's the only forceful argument of the dissents. In fact, what's remarkable about the dissents is how pro-gay they are. They don't demonize; they don't disparage; they simply say we need to resolve this in the legislatures. I tend to agree. I would much much prefer a legislative solution to a judicial one. But it remains a fact that marriage has long been fought over in the courts. How it is administered, whom it includes, the relationship between the parties, has been resolved in courts in this country for centuries. Why should that suddenly change now? And the rights of minorities - those that might never be able to command majority support - have also always resided in courts in a constitutional republic. If it is not judicial tyranny to protect the tiny minority of people in their right to burn flags, why is it judicial tyranny to protect a small group of people who merely want to marry? To be sure, the job of a state supreme court is not to legislate. But the SJC has not done so. Its ruling is not the parody of judicial invention some feared. It sticks very closely to the arguments brought before it, it invents no new rights, and its genius is in seeing that the burden of proof - given the very powerful defense of marriage rights in constitutional law - obviously resides with the state and not the plaintiffs. Moreover, it has not, as some news reports claim, "ordered" the legislature to do anything. It cannot. It was simply asked by various plaintiffs to interpret the Massachusetts Constitution, which it is obliged to do. If laws exist which the Court believes violate that Constitution, is it supposed to do nothing?"

 

I had insurance once that cost the same regardless of the number of children. Made me want to have more kids just to lower my per-child insurance cost.

 

I had no idea Sir Jackie was now being referenced by such noted authorities!
Way to go, SJC!

 

I feel honored.

 

That's a good question. It's really easy to make that leap, isn't it? I don't think *every* person against gay marriage is homophobic, but it's safe to say that every homophobic person is against gay marriage (rhombus and the square thing).

Many religions have "policies" against gay marriage. Though I adamantly disagree with it, I respect their position. We don't all have to agree on everything. As long as their views don't infringe on others' freedom (and vice versa), rock on.

Like I said earlier, churches don't have to perform anything they don't want to. Their house, their rules. But extending that influence into the courtroom or Justice of the Peace offices infringes on legal rights and mixes religion into an institution which should be blind to faith.