Witnessing the Mass Gay Marriages

[question fear]

I don't want to see this thread get flamed, I just want to share this experience I had tonight.
We (my girlfriend, our friends and I) went to the cambridge courthouse and watched the first marriages.
it was beautiful. people were crying, in shock that they'd never believed they'd witness this....I saw a friend of mine go running through the crowd, license in hand. im just happy....and I know there are a lot of people here who will understand why it was so amazing to see the first legal same-sex marriages. beautiful.
-carly

[miloblithe]

I looked at a bunch of the pictures from San Fransisco online with my fiancee when they were first put on the Internet. I agree with you completely--happy, beautiful.

[virividox]

when did the legislation legalize it?

[unfaded]

I believe the courts said they had to re-do the election laws by a certain date or else it was going to be allowed, and it appears as though they never re-did them because they want an amendment striking it down.

[question fear]

I believe the courts said they had to re-do the election laws by a certain date or else it was going to be allowed, and it appears as though they never re-did them because they want an amendment striking it down.

correct. they needed to have taken corrective action by may 17 or the marriages went through....although there's still the legal gray area of what happens if the amendment the legislature tried to create is ok'd in 2006....guess we'll just wait and see.

[Abstract]

So is the Federal, or is it by state?

Just save yourselves the trouble and take a trip to Canada. I'm not sure if its legal all over Canada, but I know it is in Toronto.

Sometimes, I'm just glad to be Canadian.

[tom.96]

This is a great development. I'm all for equality and this is a big step towards it. I know people that would welcome such a move in the UK

[kylos]

This is unfortunate. A court acting in the place of the legislature. Courts have no business telling the legislature what to do and especially not making legislative decisions. If this is how America is going, then we have pretty well lost our government to the whims of whatever and whoever.

[ibjoshua]

This is unfortunate. A court acting in the place of the legislature. Courts have no business telling the legislature what to do and especially not making legislative decisions. If this is how America is going, then we have pretty well lost our government to the whims of whatever and whoever.

Are you kidding?
That's exactly what courts are supposed to do, interpret laws and constitutional documents. Or, am I missing something here?

i_b_joshua

[Koodauw]

I don't think it is "unfortunate." The courts jobs is t define the law. The court was asked if "the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations confered by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry." It concluded that it may not.

You should also look at the greater good. How is it in any way bad to give people who love eachother the right to marry?

[wdlove]

The courts job is not to make law. There was no law in case to interpret. This has been done against the will of the people. I'm very saddened. :( :o

[Flowbee]

The courts job is not to make law. There was no law in case to interpret.

I thought that's exactly what the court ruled... that there's no law in Mass. that specifically denies same sex couples the right to marry.

[medea]

The courts job is not to make law. There was no law in case to interpret. This has been done against the will of the people. I'm very saddened. :( :o
Actually this is the will of the people, if you are against same-sex marriage I am afraid you are a minority. and a sad selfish minority at that, let these people be happy.

[Koodauw]

The courts job is not to make law. There was no law in case to interpret. This has been done against the will of the people. I'm very saddened. :( :o

*bangs head on desk*

How can you say that there was no law to be interpreted? The very question was does the the Massachusetts State constitution prohibit the benefits of marriage to same sex marriages. This is EXACTLY a question where the law needs to be interpreted. And it was.

If you feel it is against the will of the people, then write your congress representative.

[Dros]

I think question fear was hoping she could share her experiences without it turning into a political/moral/legal debate.

For me, seeing photos of the people wanting to get married in San Francisco the day they stopped allowing it drove home that it is about people that love each other - the couples were so sad, crying, and anguished looking.

I'm glad question fear had a chance to see the opposite emotions!

[Chip NoVaMac]

This is unfortunate. A court acting in the place of the legislature. Courts have no business telling the legislature what to do and especially not making legislative decisions. If this is how America is going, then we have pretty well lost our government to the whims of whatever and whoever.

Please take no offense, but if the courts side with your view, then you would have a different spin on this. Just as the Supreme Court did with the 2000 election.

Just that a legislature makes a law, does not make it legal with the State or Federal Constitution.

I think that in regards to the Gay Marriage issue, that is what scares many conservative thinking people. That given the current US Supreme Court there is a good chance that they will see the issue as did the Mass. Supreme Court.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I thought that's exactly what the court ruled... that there's no law in Mass. that specifically denies same sex couples the right to marry.

Even if there were a specific law, the Mass. Supreme Court could still rule that it was against the equal protection of individuals.

[Sayhey]

This is unfortunate. A court acting in the place of the legislature. Courts have no business telling the legislature what to do and especially not making legislative decisions. If this is how America is going, then we have pretty well lost our government to the whims of whatever and whoever.

It is amazing that this can be posted on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. It is the same argument used by southern states to say the courts had no right to outlaw "separate but equal." An independent judiciary is vital in protecting the rights of minorities from the bigotry of the majority. That is part of what makes our constitutional democracy work. Look at the pictures (http://www.boston.com/) of loving couples getting married after living all their lives in a country where they were told their love was unworthy. Then tell us how "unfortunate" this is - all I see is joy.

[pivo6]

Sayhey- Thanks for the link.

You're right. It is wonderful to see the happiness and read the stories of these newlyweds.

[MongoTheGeek]

It is amazing that this can be posted on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. It is the same argument used by southern states to say the courts had no right to outlaw "separate but equal." An independent judiciary is vital in protecting the rights of minorities from the bigotry of the majority. That is part of what makes our constitutional democracy work. Look at the pictures (http://www.boston.com/) of loving couples getting married after living all their lives in a country where they were told their love was unworthy. Then tell us how "unfortunate" this is - all I see is joy.

The odd thing is the separate but equal was a construct of the supreme court from Plesse V Furgeson. :)

I am glad that the people are happy. It is going to be interesting to see what happens when the smoke clears. This is only Act II.

[Koodauw]

It is amazing that this can be posted on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. It is the same argument used by southern states to say the courts had no right to outlaw "separate but equal." An independent judiciary is vital in protecting the rights of minorities from the bigotry of the majority. That is part of what makes our constitutional democracy work. Look at the pictures (http://www.boston.com/) of loving couples getting married after living all their lives in a country where they were told their love was unworthy. Then tell us how "unfortunate" this is - all I see is joy.

Thank you, Sayhey, your comments are appreciated.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I think question fear was hoping she could share her experiences without it turning into a political/moral/legal debate.

For me, seeing photos of the people wanting to get married in San Francisco the day they stopped allowing it drove home that it is about people that love each other - the couples were so sad, crying, and anguished looking.

I'm glad question fear had a chance to see the opposite emotions!

You are right. Though the issue is a very hard one for all on both sides of the issue.

If we keep open minds in discussing the issue, both sides can learn and grow from the debate.

As an example, my other half and I have no desires to force a church to accept giving us the "Rite of Marriage". Yet the Federal and State governments have put their thumbprint on the issue of marriage; making it more than a religious issue - but also a civil one as well.

And with that those that oppose Gay Marriage may be surprised with the end result if it gets to the USSC. For it is possible that the privileges granted by marriage by the governments may be found illegal.

[crenz]

The courts jobs is to define the law.

This is somewhat off-topic, but just thought I'd mention that the American way of legislature is not the usual way to handle separation of powers. Law-making is handled very differently in Germany, for example. Court decisions cannot have the same status as a law here.

[Chip NoVaMac]

It is amazing that this can be posted on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. It is the same argument used by southern states to say the courts had no right to outlaw "separate but equal." An independent judiciary is vital in protecting the rights of minorities from the bigotry of the majority. That is part of what makes our constitutional democracy work. Look at the pictures (http://www.boston.com/) of loving couples getting married after living all their lives in a country where they were told their love was unworthy. Then tell us how "unfortunate" this is - all I see is joy.

That was not missed by some of us. Though I never thought i would see this day in my life time.

One state down, 49 to go....

[Sayhey]

The odd thing is the separate but equal was a construct of the supreme court from Plesse V Furgeson. :)

I am glad that the people are happy. It is going to be interesting to see what happens when the smoke clears. This is only Act II.

None of the branches of government are exempt from some very horrible decisions. That is part of the importance of a balance of powers. So, yes, the Court did give us the dreadful legacy of Plessy v. Ferguson, but it finally corrected that travesty in Brown v. Board of Education. With a few more decisions from State Courts like what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has given us, maybe a few more travesties can be righted. If State Legislatures or the US Supreme Court want to beat them to it, so much the better.

You're right this is not the end by a long shot.

[Frohickey]

The odd thing is the separate but equal was a construct of the supreme court from Plesse V Furgeson. :)

I am glad that the people are happy. It is going to be interesting to see what happens when the smoke clears. This is only Act II.

The smoke already has cleared... or didn't you know that there are various local and state laws banning the smoking of cigarettes.. EVEN IN PRIVATE PROPERTY!!! :eek:

I think that what is happening in Massachusetts is all well and good. I think that they should raise the marriage license fee though, that way, the state gets to see some added state revenue. Just might make it an easier sell in other cash-starved states. :eek:

[mactastic]

The smoke already has cleared... or didn't you know that there are various local and state laws banning the smoking of cigarettes.. EVEN IN PRIVATE PROPERTY!!! :eek:


Horror of horrors, they've also mandated ADA requirements apply to those same PRIVATE PROPERTIES. That's right, the ones that the general public work in and have a reasonable expectation of a healthy, safe, and accessible environment.

But once again, you are attempting to deflect the argument away from (AKA hijack the thread) the topic at hand. You want to discuss private property rights? Start your own thread! :eek: :D :eek:

[janey]

go massachusetts...
i'm just waiting for california's blasted semi-conservative government to make same-sex marriages legal. Like for real, not the thing Newsom did in San Francisco...
then i'll ditch school and fly to wherever I need to go to watch some of my friends get married after waiting a long long time to be legally recognized as a couple. God, I can't wait.

[trebblekicked]

kudos to massachusetts. here's hoping the rest of the dominoes fall fast and hard!

[ibjoshua]

The very question was does the the Massachusetts State constipation prohibit the benefits of marriage to same sex marriages.
lol
ha ha.
nice

But seriously, well done Mass. Now let's see what the powers that be in Washington do to piss on their parade.

i_b_joshua

[Koodauw]

haha, that was totally on accident, I used spell check in Appleworks, and I just checked replace, without looking. My fault.

[Frohickey]

go massachusetts...
i'm just waiting for california's blasted semi-conservative government to make same-sex marriages legal. Like for real, not the thing Newsom did in San Francisco...
then i'll ditch school and fly to wherever I need to go to watch some of my friends get married after waiting a long long time to be legally recognized as a couple. God, I can't wait.

Semi-conservative?

California is not called the "Left Coast" for nothing! :eek:

[Frohickey]

Horror of horrors, they've also mandated ADA requirements apply to those same PRIVATE PROPERTIES. That's right, the ones that the general public work in and have a reasonable expectation of a healthy, safe, and accessible environment.

But once again, you are attempting to deflect the argument away from (AKA hijack the thread) the topic at hand. You want to discuss private property rights? Start your own thread! :eek: :D :eek:

Hehehe... look who is hijacking the thread. I post one sentence/paragraph, that was a good segue from the 'smoke' comment, and you expand and extend the thread detour into a complete thread interchange! :eek:

My post, overall, brought the thread back where it belonged, while yours was a total tangent. :eek: :D :eek: :p

[Frohickey]

That was not missed by some of us. Though I never thought i would see this day in my life time.

One state down, 49 to go....

Actually, its 48.

Vermont was first.
Massachusetts is the second.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Actually, its 48.

Vermont was first.
Massachusetts is the second.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Vermont is a Civil Union. And does not grant all rights of marriage that the Massachusetts right to marry does.

[jelloshotsrule]

Correct me if I am wrong, but Vermont is a Civil Union. And does not grant all rights of marriage that the Massachusetts right to marry does.

no, you are correct

and there are 1,049 rights that go only with marriage. so "civil unions" are NOT equal rights

[Chip NoVaMac]

no, you are correct

and there are 1,049 rights that go only with marriage. so "civil unions" are NOT equal rights

And despite the Governor of Mass. finding a law that was used against "mixed-race" marriages; there will be many more court challenges as the same sex married couples move out of Massachusetts.

And in Virginia they just passed a law that limits the ability to gain some of those rights enjoyed by married couple through other legal means (wills, Power of Attorney's, and the such). Companies can no longer offer domestic partner benefits, even if they wanted to.

[question fear]

And despite the Governor of Mass. finding a law that was used against "mixed-race" marriages; there will be many more court challenges as the same sex married couples move out of Massachusetts.

And in Virginia they just passed a law that limits the ability to gain some of those rights enjoyed by married couple through other legal means (wills, Power of Attorney's, and the such). Companies can no longer offer domestic partner benefits, even if they wanted to.

sad...it will be interesting to see how this spreads, what happens next.
apparently elliot spitzer, ny state atty general said he would recognize mass same-sex marriages even though ny state does not grant the marriages.
this could be what happens, especially short-term, if states (especially neighboring ones to mass, where there's lots of overlap) want to maintain good relations with mass residents. also, because marriage is a state law issue, its possible for some states to allow couples who lived/live in mass to be recognized as married in thier state without giving marriages.
but i think it's likely to slowly and more quietly spread from state to state.
i think everyone who is opposed to same-sex marriage should try to see footage or pictures of the people getting married in mass....the expression of awe, shock, and happiness, the people who brought their kids. it was amazing. ive never been in a crowd that was so happy and polite and just in awe of being there for such a historical moment.
on a personal note, i just stood there and realized suddenly that i could marry my girlfriend, that i could marry a woman, and to have that barrier i was so accutely aware of since i came out disappear almost had me break down...i didn't realize how important it was to me until i saw it happening around me.

-carly

[numediaman]

As some of you may know, I am quite a fan of Juan Cole's blog. As a history professor at the University of Michigan, he is often seen on TV, especially PBS, adding analysis of the situation in Iraq. His blog is absolutely essential if you want to hear the Arab viewpoint, as well as some historical prospective.

Occasionally he discusses other issues. I thought this was particularly good:

A law against gay marriage seems to me to fail the "secular purpose" test, and insofar as the political base for passing it is conservative churches, it would seem pretty entangled with religion, too. And that is my reply to Senator Rick Santorum and others who argue that gay marriage is equivalent to many deviant practices frowned on by society. There is a secular purpose for forbidding marriage of close relatives, since it exposes the offspring to heightened genetic danger. There is a secular purpose for forbidding pedophilia and pederasty, indeed there are many secular purposes fulfilled by such a ban (forbidding the manipulation through intimacy of the young by persons much their senior, which is unfair, and keeping the young from developing all sorts of neuroses and personality problems as a result of an inappropriate relationship for which they are unready). It is said that gay unions offend against the sanctity of marriage. Actually the secular state has no business marrying anyone if it is thereby affirming the "sanctity" of anything. That would severely contravene the Lemon test.

But I cannot think of a secular purpose that is served by banning gay marriage. All the arguments against it are religious. It is said to be unnatural. But it is not, if by that it is being argued that same-sex behavior does not occur in nature (look at our close cousins, the bonobos). The "unnatural" argument is really an appeal to religious ideas of what is "natural," i.e., what is in accord with the will of the Creator as known by His revelation. From a purely secular point of view gay marriage has many benefits for society. Sex within marriage is safer with regard to health issues than is promiscuity. Gay marriages do not produce offspring, and so they reduce population growth rates and reduce the strain on the world's limited resources (the old custom of forcing gay men to marry women and father children was pro-natalist, i.e., contributed to population growth). Etc.

The argument that past American society forbade gay marriage and so it must be constitutional won't pass muster. The American experiment with political liberty is an evolving one. Until fairly recently the Federal government forbade the practice of Native American religion, even though that clearly violates the First Amendment. Past American society often passed laws or engaged in practices inconsistent with the letter and/or the spirit of the constitution. We are getting to know the implications of the document over time, and many of those implications could not be foreseen by its framers. Thomas Jefferson would not be at all surprised by this conclusion. He wrote,

"this ball of liberty, I believe most piously, is now so well in motion that it will roll round the globe, at least the enlightened part of it, for light & liberty go together. it is our glory that we first put it into motion."

The ball of liberty is not some known quantity that we control and the limits of which are immediately apparent, in this view. It has a will of its own and goes places we may not have initially intended. We just "set it in motion."*

I am sure others have made this argument about the Lemon test, but I've been too busy reading Iraqi newspapers to notice.

It is relevant to my interests because homophobia is deeply embedded in radical Islamism, and I think the intolerance that leads to terrorism must be fought across the board. The Taliban and the Khomeinist regime in Iran passed laws making gay affairs a capital crime. Yes, people were killed for being gay. For the Taliban, this harsh attitude derived in part from concerns about military discipline. Taliban society was highly gender-segregated, so the males mainly socialized with other males. Out in the field there was a lot of fooling around and sexual experimentation, but of course it reduced discipline to have two guys in the same platoon sleeping with each other. So if they were found out they were executed on the spot. The Taliban were expert at seeking out the weirdest and least reliable of the sayings attributed by the folk process to the Prophet Muhammad, and then applying them in a literal way to the law. So, they found some saying that a wall should be pushed down on homosexuals, and probably for the first time in Islamic history they implemented it.

Even in less regimented societies, like Egypt, gays have been scapegoated and even tortured. Egypt is not an Islamic state but rather a military dictatorship. It does have a strong dissident Islamist movement (think Ayman al-Zawahir, Bin Laden's number 2). It does not even formally have a law making homosexuality illegal, but prosecutors have nevertheless prosecuted gays. President Mubarak has occasionally yielded to Western pressure to lighten up on the persecution.

While persecuting gays and not letting them marry are different things, both measures stem from intolerance and a depriving of some persons of rights enjoyed by others.

Religion should not be telling governments what laws they must pass or mustn't pass, where there is no secular purpose served by the law. That is a cornerstone of the US Constitution, and the world would be much better off if everyone adopted this principle. If religious people want to engage in some practice because their religion tells them too, fine. They are free to do it. But they are not free to try to pass their religious beliefs into statute and dictate to the rest of us. That commandeering of the state for the purpose of imposing religion is what Usama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda are centrally about. It leads to oppressing religious minorities and secular people and women and gays. The same impulse of religious intolerance that led to September 11 is what lies behind much opposition to gay marriage. So we have to decide if we are Americans or Taliban.

http://www.juancole.com/

[Chip NoVaMac]

sad...it will be interesting to see how this spreads, what happens next.
apparently elliot spitzer, ny state atty general said he would recognize mass same-sex marriages even though ny state does not grant the marriages.
this could be what happens, especially short-term, if states (especially neighboring ones to mass, where there's lots of overlap) want to maintain good relations with mass residents. also, because marriage is a state law issue, its possible for some states to allow couples who lived/live in mass to be recognized as married in thier state without giving marriages.
but i think it's likely to slowly and more quietly spread from state to state.
i think everyone who is opposed to same-sex marriage should try to see footage or pictures of the people getting married in mass....the expression of awe, shock, and happiness, the people who brought their kids. it was amazing. ive never been in a crowd that was so happy and polite and just in awe of being there for such a historical moment.
on a personal note, i just stood there and realized suddenly that i could marry my girlfriend, that i could marry a woman, and to have that barrier i was so accutely aware of since i came out disappear almost had me break down...i didn't realize how important it was to me until i saw it happening around me.

-carly

I don't think that people realize what a moment in history we witnessed yesterday in Mass. There will be those that will say that it is the end of civilization and religion. But these same cries were heard 50 plus years ago in regards to how blacks were viewed as second class, or even non-human.

I also don't think that many see the challenges ahead as a nation in reconciling ourselves to a changing climate. Have people that oppose Gay marriage thought about what the final outcome may be?

It is not unconceivable that the courts find that Gay marriage does not have to be sanctioned by the government, but at the same time any laws that grant rights to married couples is illegal.

I wish had the opportunity to been in Mass. yesterday. For it would have been nice to have experienced first hand the breaking down of a barrier that should not have existed in this day and age. To have experienced what blacks that I have heard and spoken with, experienced when they didn't have to ride in the back of the bus. When they could go to any school they wanted.

[Frohickey]

It is relevant to my interests because homophobia is deeply embedded in radical Islamism, and I think the intolerance that leads to terrorism must be fought across the board. The Taliban and the Khomeinist regime in Iran passed laws making gay affairs a capital crime. Yes, people were killed for being gay. For the Taliban, this harsh attitude derived in part from concerns about military discipline. Taliban society was highly gender-segregated, so the males mainly socialized with other males. Out in the field there was a lot of fooling around and sexual experimentation, but of course it reduced discipline to have two guys in the same platoon sleeping with each other. So if they were found out they were executed on the spot. The Taliban were expert at seeking out the weirdest and least reliable of the sayings attributed by the folk process to the Prophet Muhammad, and then applying them in a literal way to the law. So, they found some saying that a wall should be pushed down on homosexuals, and probably for the first time in Islamic history they implemented it.


Its kinda ironic, that the forces that are against gay marriage are allied with the forces that are fighting radical islamism. Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed.