Green light for gay marriages in Mass.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by idea_hamster, Feb 4, 2004.

  1. idea_hamster macrumors 65816

    idea_hamster

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    NYC, or thereabouts
    #1
    State's high court says full rights must be granted:

    MSNBC.com
    CNN.com

    I guess we'll find out just what "full faith and credit" means now.

    [edit: added alternate link]
     
  2. toaster_oven macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Location:
    not sure
    #2
    Knowing this state's legislature, the gay marriage ban will most likely not pass - they've tried at least once to pass an amendment, but it was soundly defeated.

    Also- residents of Massachusetts generally support extending some legal rights to gay couples, so most people probably won't care if we have gay marriage anyway.

    Well, any guesses which states will be next?

    -the toaster
     
  3. trebblekicked macrumors 6502a

    trebblekicked

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    Apparently nothing can stop it now, the soonest a constitutional amendment could get enacted is 2006, and until then this courts ruling is the law. And they made it very clear that 'seperate but equal' wasn't going to fly with them.

    Good deal! Congratulations to all the people who will now be able to participate fully in the institution of marriage. It was a long time coming, but we are there finally. I highly doubt a constitutional amendment at the state or national level will be able to pass.
     
  5. ebow macrumors 6502a

    ebow

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Trapped in a world before later on
    #5
    At the national level, I sure as hell hope not, but I also strongly doubt it will happen. At the state level... I still hope not, but it's far more likely. :mad:

    They need to run some awareness ads, comparing this issue with that of interracial marrianges from the 18- and early 1900s. "Unnatural..." "unholy..." "indecent..." :rolleyes:
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    You think so in Mass.? Maybe in some other states, but not in Mass.
     
  7. ebow macrumors 6502a

    ebow

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2001
    Location:
    Trapped in a world before later on
    #7
    Well, I live in MA, but only moved here 7 or 8 months ago, so... I don't know. It's not as liberal as it's sometimes made out to be.
     
  8. skytown205 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    #8
    Don't really have anything to say except that this is a great thing. I was a bit worried after all of the "defense of marriage" stuff and Bush's statements in the State of the Union address. Hopefully, more states will follow suit. If anything, it's been great that the issue has been put out there so that people are forced to think about it...
     
  9. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #10
    it's really an amazing feeling to watch a civil rights movement make progress. I missed the women's movement, i missed the black civil rights movement, but someday i'll be able to say that i remember when gay marriage was illegal... and in 50 years, hardly anyone will be able to imagine such a time.

    paul
     
  10. jxyama macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    #11
    i'm glad that even under W - when personal liberties have been diminished, citizens have been lied to and economy has been absolutely dismal - society can still make positive progress.

    this is good news - i'm sure it's long time coming for some of you - but better late than never...
     
  11. slowtreme macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 27, 2003
    Location:
    Tampa FL
    #12
    Recorded Gay relations go back thousands of years. A huge portion of Famous people going back to the Ancient Romans up through the Middle ages can be clearly linked to having gay and same sex lovers. And NO ONE gave a damn. Frankly no one should give a damn now either. What people do for fun is thier own business.

    The way I see it is not a lack of Legal Gay Marriges, it's" AMERICAN FREEBIES FOR F***ING". In America, men and women get stupid perks for getting hitched, when they should really just have sex and leave the legal system out of it becuase it's not going to last anyway. Instead we give these people tax breaks and cheap loans. I have no idea of other countries give incentives for getting married.

    So if there was no perks involved in being married, like joint insurance, Tax and Loan benefits, etc., would Same-sex Couples be so interested in that piece of paper?

    This coming from a married man that has seen the bastardization of marrige in the US. Vegas Weddings, Justice of the Peace afternoons, Movie Stars that hook up for a weekend, where does it all end? I just wonder, do people REALLY want to be married, or do they just want a free ride, while getting a ride from a friend.
     
  12. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #13
    This could be a 'vote of non-confidence' in G.W's leadership, which is especially important in this election year. BTW our Prime Minister has just sent back the "gay marriage" debate to the Supreme Court of Canada. Everyone is expecting the court to formally legalize it, (as it exists in B.C. and Ontario). Many see it here as Martin (our Prime Minister) avoiding taking personal responsibility for it, as he could inact the law much quicker than the Supreme Court could. But this is an election year for us too and he's got to play it cool on the 'hot button' issues... until he's elected.

    At any rate I see this as a positive and maybe we can worry about something more threatening then letting two people in love formalize that bond. :rolleyes:
     
  13. jxyama macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    #14
    i imagine a strong yes. and even if not, wanting the same legal benefits is a good enough reason as far as i'm concerned. they just want the same benefits straight couples pretty much take for granted - and they shouldn't feel bad about that at all.

    i think deterioration of marriage in america is a separate issue from legalized gay marriage.
     
  14. mraudet macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    #15
    quite right. i live in mass and cant remember the last time i was proud of state govt. can you?
     
  15. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #16
    Heh, I'm from just a bit over the border (literally, my house is about 100 ft away from it) in RI, and I've never been proud of the gov't in MA yet. Well, this is good, but it' still not gonna make me proud of them. :p
     
  16. Krizoitz macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Wakayama, Japan
    #17
    I think the best solution is this:

    Civil unions for everyone
    Marriages from religious groups

    That way no one is being discriminated against in terms of the government and marriage rights (civil union rights?) AND those institutions who feel applying the term marriage to gays are free not to do so.
     
  17. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #18
    Yep.
     
  18. question fear macrumors 68020

    question fear

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Location:
    The "Garden" state
    #19
    go mass!
    go gays!
    wow. my two states, mass and nj, are both coming through...snif.
    -c
     
  19. radhak macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    #20
    btw, does this not mean that people can drive over to Mass, get married, and claim marriage rights in whatever state they live in?

    wonder how soon that will be tested? anybody here planning some ceremony soon in Boston? :D

    wonder if this could bite GW in the backside in his election year while he is busy defending himself against the war / intel / imbroglio ...?
     
  20. question fear macrumors 68020

    question fear

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Location:
    The "Garden" state
    #21
    i think the six month thing is still in place..as in they have six months to change it. expect lawsuits days after.

    in other news, when i read "bit gw in the backside" i had this mental image of what his face would be like if that happened...it was scary and funny all at once.

    -c
     
  21. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #22
    No, reciprocity is a per-state thing. For example, legislation about to be signed into law in Ohio will explicitly not recognize same-sex marriages or unions from other states.
     
  22. question fear macrumors 68020

    question fear

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Location:
    The "Garden" state
    #23
    i thought the way it worked was that state-to-state citizen is one thing, but if i am a mass resident and am in ohio with my wife we HAVE to be granted the rights of a married couple as a courtesy to the state of mass...ie if i am married to a woman and we move to ohio we lose the license but visiting they have to give it to us since its not theirs to take away (also even ohio would have to acknowledge a foreign marriage from amsterdam or canada because of international treaties. thats existed since they legalized marriage in those countries.)

    -c
     
  23. radhak macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    #24
    now are you talking marriage in general or just gay marriages? ie, do they have a specific non-reciprocity clause just for gay marriages?

    either way, all the 'rights' are relevant only for the long-term, like mortgage, insurance rates, etc.

    uh, waitaminnit, i am forgetting the emergency situation at a hospital where the spouse of a patient is given more rights than other (friends/relatives)... so this might still have its uses in other states, right?
     
  24. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #25
    States don't have to recognize other states' marriage at face value because of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act that clinton passed. And before gays go saying that Clinton was a bastard for this, allow me to explain. Clinton took a lot of the pressure off of liberal states when he did this, so that they could legalize gay marriage if they wanted, and other states wouldn't seek to prevent it. It was sneaky as hell but he did a huge thing for gays then. Anyhoo, the law basically says that you can marry in one state and another state can, but does not HAVE to, recognize it. But, the law doesn't prevent couples from seeking to overturn laws against marriage in their own state, on the basis that the state marriage laws are similar from state to state, and the constitution is similar in this regard, so unconstitutional in Mass must mean unconstitutional under their state.

    The lawsuits will begin shortly. I expect they will fall about 50/50, some winning some losing. Of those that win, some will be overturned. But within 10 years, I'd say 10 more states will have gay marriage.

    They can't even get a Constitutional Amendment against flag burning :p They're not going to get one against gay marriage. Americans simply do not want their Constitution abused this way. As for the amendment in Mass, sure they'll try, but it takes 3 years (at shortest) to get an amendment through... After Massachusetts *doesn't* fall off the face of the earth because of God's wrath in, say, mid-May, support will simply fade away. People stop being hysterical when they see the truth, and the law stands.

    :)
    paul
     

Share This Page