Witnessing the Mass Gay Marriages

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by question fear, May 16, 2004.

  1. question fear macrumors 68020

    question fear

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Location:
    The "Garden" state
    #1
    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
     
  2. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #2
    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.
     
  3. virividox macrumors 601

    virividox

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Location:
    Manila - Nottingham - Philadelphia - Santa Barbar
  4. unfaded macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #4
    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.
     
  5. question fear thread starter macrumors 68020

    question fear

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Location:
    The "Garden" state
    #5
    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.
     
  6. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #6
    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.
     
  7. tom.96 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Location:
    UK (southern)
    #7
    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
     
  8. kylos macrumors 6502a

    kylos

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Location:
    MI
    #8
    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.
     
  9. ibjoshua macrumors 6502a

    ibjoshua

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2002
    Location:
    Japan
    #9
    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
     
  10. Koodauw macrumors 68040

    Koodauw

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #10
    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?
     
  11. wdlove macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #11
    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. :( :eek:
     
  12. Flowbee macrumors 68030

    Flowbee

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Alameda, CA
    #12
    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.
     
  13. medea macrumors 68030

    medea

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2002
    Location:
    Madison, Wi
    #13
    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.
     
  14. Koodauw macrumors 68040

    Koodauw

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #14
    *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.
     
  15. Dros macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    #15
    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!
     
  16. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #16
    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.
     
  17. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #17
    Even if there were a specific law, the Mass. Supreme Court could still rule that it was against the equal protection of individuals.
     
  18. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #18
    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 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.
     
  19. pivo6 macrumors 68000

    pivo6

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #19
    Sayhey- Thanks for the link.

    You're right. It is wonderful to see the happiness and read the stories of these newlyweds.
     
  20. MongoTheGeek macrumors 68040

    MongoTheGeek

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Location:
    Its not so much where you are as when you are.
    #20
    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.
     
  21. Koodauw macrumors 68040

    Koodauw

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #21
    Thank you, Sayhey, your comments are appreciated.
     
  22. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #22
    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.
     
  23. crenz macrumors 6502a

    crenz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Location:
    Shanghai, China
    #23
    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.
     
  24. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #24
    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....
     
  25. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page