Same-sex marriage ruling this morning

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by question fear, Nov 18, 2003.

  1. question fear macrumors 68020

    question fear

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Location:
    The "Garden" state
    #1
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    Don't get too excited yet... From my understanding, this ruling doesn't actually grant the 7 couples marriage licenses, but it does clear the way for legislation to pass to that effect. They have 180 days to figure something out. Things are changing though. As much as the religious, dogmatic opposition doesn't want it, the courts are dragging Americans out of the dark ages with respect to homosexuality.

    This part was particularly heartening:
    But I believe they are refering to the Mass. state constitution, not the US version. Not sure how that affects the matter, but I think it does somehow. There will be a move to amend the Mass constitution, and possibly provide impetus to a national amendment to ban gay marriages. The backlash could hurt, but it will be over sooner rather than later.

    But having said all that.... YAY!

    We could just put this in politics now, or we can do it later. We could even start a pool to see how long it takes.....;)
     
  3. question fear thread starter macrumors 68020

    question fear

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Location:
    The "Garden" state
    #4
    my exact response.
    Actually, my best friend was calling me, and i didnt want to wake up, so i just rolled over....then he called again, and i slowly began to realize my roommate's girlfriend had the tv on, and i thought something terrible had happened.
    Then i wandered into the living room and found out...and answered the phone yelling many joyful expletives. :)
    but yes, wahoo was in there somewhere.
    --carly
     
  4. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #5
    yes, this only applies in mass. and yes, it could be overturned by an amendment. but the amendment seems unlikely, and this does open the doors to more legal challenges in other states. from what i understand there are couples backed by GLAAD and the HRC in about every state poised to sue, i'd imagine many will file today. they have already taken the first step in applying and being denied, which has to be done before the department of health can be sued. so, in a couple of years time, we could be seeing this sort of ruling hit state after state... and bigoted congresspeople won't be able to stop it by shredding the constitutions. when enough go, this will become federal...

    so, i think before today, federal gay marriage = 30-50 years away. after today, 10 years away. or less.

    :D :D :D
    pnw
     
  5. Kid Red macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    #6
    I'm not sure how the close minded church going idiots in power ever got the ban passed to begin with.
     
  6. macphisto macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    At home
    #7
    Because it is morally and ethically wrong.

    And I would watch who you are calling "close minded church going idiots." It seems as though you are rather close minded yourself, not seeing both sides of the coin.
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    And here come the fireworks....

    My parents are pretty Catholic and they support gay marriage, so not all who go to church are on the wrong side of this issue.
     
  8. ColoJohnBoy macrumors 65816

    ColoJohnBoy

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #9
    :D:D:D:D:D

    I'm on the verge of tears. This is just... wonderful.

    People all across the country are going to use this and the Vermont laws as precedence for finally and at long last extended full legal rights to all citizens, probably using Article IV, Section I of the constitution to do so, at least once Massachusetts has passed laws legalizing marriage between any and all people (Assuming they don't amend their Constitution - but seeing as how amendments require a vote of the general electorate, elections aren't until November, and the legislature only has 180 days, that isn't likely to happen. But I'm rambling now, aren't I?).

    If I remember rightly, that section says something like:

    Full faith and credit shall be given by each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of the other States. Congress may prescribe by general law the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

    Aaaagh. My mind is racing too quickly to sort out all my thoughts. I'll come back to this later.

    But I'm feeling good now!
     
  9. question fear thread starter macrumors 68020

    question fear

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Location:
    The "Garden" state
    #10
    the thing about religious arguments is that religious groups do not grant civil marriage licenses...so if a particular group opposes the ruling, they are not obligated to perform the marriages. No one expects someone with the ability to perform marriage to perform ones he or she opposes...but in terms of the civil side, the only issue is constitutional. and thats why the mass sc heard a case that barely, if at all, touched on religious issues...because it wasnt a relevant part of the case.
    in any case, i can't wait till the protesters start flying in...
    and i just remembered how close i am to the archdiosese (sp?) of boston...wonder how long it will take before they comment.
    --carly
     
  10. radhak macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    #11
    first of all, the tone of your post (and the blanket statement mixing religion here) is what makes this sort of thing very difficult for the rest. it is easy to attack (and villify) a hot-headed comment...

    anyway, why were you surprised? i am afraid you are not too close to reality. after seeing the happenings for the past year, particularly Bush's leanings, it is clear that there is a very long fight left to get equality and justice.
    i am actually surprised that the courts are on the right side even now; i had thought they (conservatives) had taken care of it already :(

    indications are that if state-supreme courts start striking down the ban, then Bush might step in to legislate in an amendment. i expect this battle to last around 20 more years before humanity wins.

    but still, each small victory is to be savoured, and today's was one such. :D :)

    what is the other side of the coin, mac? like gay marriages could pollute the atmosphere we live in?
     
  11. wdlove macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #12
    It will be a very sad day if our legislature does not act. The judiciary has no business legislating from the bench, there job is to intrepret. It seems that on this they ar forcing the hands of the legislature. They have 180 days to act. I plan on calling my representative. They must remember that an election occurs in November. The winds are changing in this state.
     
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    Ain't that the truth! This really has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with equal protection under the law. Judges seem to be able to make the distinction, the average American does not.

    This ruling in no way means that Catholics have to start performing gay weddings in their churches, nor that Evangelicals will have to recognize a civil wedding. All it means is that anyone who wants to can get married to a legal, consenting adult with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. We all deserve that right.
     
  13. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #14
    This is exactly what happend in B.C. and Ontario in Canada this past year or so. There were even a few same-sex marriages that made the head lines here. Our Prime Minister was to table a law to allow same sex marriages but it was hastly put together, full of holes and some of his own back-benchers were poised to vote it down in parliament. Jean Chretien (our PM) is on his way out this February and may try one more go at it. I hope it does make it through into law, what's the harm in letting homosexuals get married? Some would say they have it better, by not getting married!:D
     
  14. Dros macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    #15
    I agree that religious aspects of this don't belong in what should be a civil matter. The problem for people with strong religious views on the subject is that they do view marriage as a contract between the couple and God, not as primarily a civil matter. And at the same time, people without religious faith might feel uncomfortable with the religious connotations of marriage. I feel the government should have a "relationship partnership" that entitles the people involved to the legal protections currently given to married people. And this should be the civil version of marriage for all people. Then people can go to a church and make a contract with their God as well if they choose. The problem now is that the government has appropriated a traditionally religious institution when it should have left it alone.
     
  15. question fear thread starter macrumors 68020

    question fear

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Location:
    The "Garden" state
    #16
    um...two things. one, the supreme court did not legislate from the bench. they were asked to determine whether a particular law discriminated based on the constitution of massachusetts. the sc said it did, and gave a deadline for compliance with that civil liberty. if the supreme court had been legislating from the bench, there would have been marriage licenses issued. Since the law of marriage already exists in massachusetts, it required the court to determine why it was against the civil liberties of a minority group to stop same-sex marriage.
    two, the legislature has been ordered to correct a civil injustice. if they do not comply, it will not simply go away. this si not like the clean elections precedent where the legislature could afford to not pass a law. while there may be tremendous conservative pressure, they need to pass a same-sex marriage law, and about damn time too.
    besides, you want to talk elections? consider how many people in the city of boston are happy today, who are not going to forget who supports them....consider that the conservative side is not the only one with mobilized email and weblists, who can also call legislators. When you grow up believing you won't be able to get married, and someone dangles that possibility in front of you, you don't back down. And i highly doubt the queer rights movement will do so...we're going to win.
    Sorry, just needed to lay that out there.
    --carly
     
  16. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #17
    I'm still unclear as to why others care about two same-sex people being married. Even if it is morally or ethically wrong, but doesn't have any impact on hetero-marriages - what's the big deal? Isn't the "contract with God" only the business of three parties (the couple + God)??

    Maybe I just don't understand why we are imparting divine judgement on others - how is that our place?
     
  17. radhak macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    #18
    ahem, you mean 'even if somebody thinks it is morally or ethically wrong...' There are no absolutes here.

    but otherwise to your question, EXACTLY RIGHT! why anybody should be against two people marrying, is beyond any sane person's comprehension. how does it affect anybody else that those two happen to be of the same gender? because some religious tenets say so? what if my religious tenets say that eating meat is a sin? should i pass judgement on others, even if their eating habits don't affect me at all? think of the implications...
     
  18. Dros macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    #19
    Plenty of vegetarians will pass judgement on meat eaters. If you think it is wrong to kill animals for food, it may be hard to not think less of people that do. And I should add, plenty of vegetarians also do not care what others eat.

    I don't think people that are against same-sex marriages are insane. They think of marriage as a primarily religious institution. Their religion says (to them) that homosexuality is a sin, and is forbidden. So to allow same-sex marriage is to, in part, condone that behavior.

    I can't say that thought process is completely logical, but I will say not insane.
     
  19. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #20
    actually i was hoping they'd make more laws based on religion... like, eat grasshopers not pork, beat your children as a matter of regularity, the return of slavery, the decimation of entire cultures, the mass collection of dead peoples' foreskins, etc. In fact, i happen to have a list of all marriage laws that should be enacted, based on the bible--

    -No state may sanction marriage between people of the same gender.
    -No state may sanction marriage between a man and a woman who was married previously but has since divorced (Matthew 5:32)
    -No state may sanction marriage involving a widow (unless it is to her brother-in-law). All women whose husbands have passed away are to refrain from intimacy and pleasure for the remainder of their lives (1 Timothy 5:5-15)
    -No state may sanction marriage between people of different races (Deuteronomy 7:3; Numbers 25:6-8; 36:3-9; 1 Kings 11:2; Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 13:25-27)
    -No state may sanction marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian (2 John 1:9-11; 2 Corinthians 6:14-17)
    -No state may sanction marriage involving a man who has had sexual thoughts about a woman other than the one he intends to marry (Matthew 5:28)
    -No state may sanction marriage between a man whose brother has passed away and any woman other than his brother's widow. Each state must require the brother of a deceased man to marry his brother's widow (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)
    -No state may sanction marriage between a man and any woman unwilling to promise in her wedding vows to obey her husband and submit to his every whim (Ephesians 5:22-24; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Colossions 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11-12; Tutus 2:3, 5; 1 Peter 3:1).
    -No state may sanction marriage in which the wedding ceremony is to occur during the woman's menstrual cycle unless the prospective spouses agree to refrain from intimate relations until the woman's period of uncleanness has terminated (Leviticus 18:19, 20:18; Ezekiel 18:5-6)
    -No state may sanction marriage between a rapist and any woman other than his victim. States must require a rapist to marry his victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) unless the victim failed to cry out, in which case the rapist is relieved of this obligation (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).
    -No state may sanction marriage between a man and an aggressive or contentious woman (Proverbs 21:9, 21:19, 25:24, 27:15).

    I think we need to amend the constitution. Don't want to be hypocrites (I hear Jesus hated that)... Who agrees?

    :)
    pnw
     
  20. railthinner macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    #21
    Here's an answer to the courts quandry:

    All "marriages" should be "civil unions" -- gay or straight -- where the govt. is concerned. Either that or the concept of marriage and civil union as recognized by the state should be banished entirely. If you want to get married before your church and family, so be it. What's the state have to do with it?
     
  21. toaster_oven macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Location:
    not sure
    #22
    to me, the main arguments against gay marriage has everything to do with the religious institution of marriage. the reason the Mass court ruled against the ban on same-sex marriage is that the state only recognizes civil marriage (i.e. defined by some kind of government registration- NOT religious marriage). a religious institution can marry whoever they want, but the couple still has to gain a license from the state government - a separate entity.

    the whole problem stems from the conflict between the legal definition of "marriage" and the cultural definition of "marriage." since, according to state and federal legislation, people who are married are granted special rights (and restrictions) as opposed to those couples who choose to be unmarried. The argument here is that same-sex couples are denied the same rights as opposite-sex couples - which, if i am not mistaken, may be in violation of the 14th amendment of the federal constitution. The massachusetts constitution affords a greater set of rights to people of differing sexual orientation (same-sex couples can adopt in Massachusetts, there are anti-discrimination laws based on sexual-orientation, etc...) - therefore a ban on same-sex marriage, according to the ruling, is against these other provisions in the state constitution.

    The cultural definition of marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman. because our legal system is set up to protect the rights of minorities (all people include a minority of the people), we often have legal conflicts with so-called cultural norms - for example, not so long ago, women were not allowed to vote, interracial marriage was illegal, segregation, slavery, etc... these were all considered cultural norms at their particular time, meaning a majority of the population believed that these were mandated by some higher authority (God, history, etc...) than the government.
     
  22. rainman::|:| macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2002
    Location:
    iowa
    #23
    evidently none of the religious right wants to comment on my earlier post. it's all fine and easy to say "gays shouldn't have rights", but it's a bit harder to say "a rapist and his victim are required to marry"... and it's pretty hard to explain why only certain parts of the bible should be enforced.

    this is, of course, completely ignoring the "separation of church and state" factor, since religious-rightists do not believe that government and religion should be separate. apparently they don't remember when other religions controlled various governments... when that happens to christians, it's called oppression. in contrast, trying to remove christianity from the government is persecution. amazingly enough, both times christians are the victims. strange...

    pnw
     
  23. question fear thread starter macrumors 68020

    question fear

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Location:
    The "Garden" state
    #24
    well, i definitely dont fall under the religious right heading, but i thought your list was screamingly funny and dead-on.
    sadly, im on your side, so theres no argument.
    -carly
     
  24. Dros macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    #25
    It does seem like we're all pretty much "preaching to the choir" here. But the list was funny.
     

Share This Page