|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this article |
Printer-friendly version
|
|
News :: Gender |
|
Triumph for Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts! (english) |
|
by madhatter
Email: newswire (nospam) madhattersimc.org |
18 Nov 2003
Modified: 22 Nov 2003 |
|
Triumph for Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts! |
Triumph for Same-Sex Marriage in Massachusetts!
This morning, Tuesday, November 18, at 8:00AM, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an important decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, finding that the equal protection provisions of the Massachusetts State Constitution require that same-sex couples be permitted to marry.
This is the lead parapraph of the decision:
"Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether,
consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples." |
See also:
http://www.madhattersimc.org
|
|
Im all for same-sex "marriage", kinda. (english) |
by 90s Man
(No verified email address) |
18 Nov 2003
|
|
I think they should call it something other than "marriage", though. I liked the term "domestic partner" better than marriage. Although homosexuals may live in a monogamous, stable relationship with each other, their "marriage" is not the same as with a standard hetero couple. The main reason I am for it is so that homo couples can enjoy the tax benefits, joint credit, etc. I dont think people will ever consider it on par with a regular marriage, but its a step forward! |
|
Who? (english) |
by Veritas
(No verified email address) |
18 Nov 2003
|
|
Who are you or who is anyone else to say that the love shared between a homosexual couple is different than that of a heterosexual couple? |
|
Love is one thing, and marriage is another (english) |
by 90s Man
(No verified email address) |
19 Nov 2003
|
|
Make no mistake, love does NOT equal marriage. Marriage is a contractural relationship, dependent on laws. Love shared between people really has little or nothing to do with marriage. This is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. |
|
Who really cares? Bigots? (english) |
by Kris Samsel
(No verified email address) |
19 Nov 2003
|
Wow...Now anyone and everyone can marry. So. I've been there done that. Not that important. (Unless one or the other feels insecure and needs commitment.)
Now, can the people who feel the same way I do, get back to the IMPORTANT ISSUES?
You know...Weapons of Mass Destruction, Tax breaks for the rich, Patriot Act, 9-11 coverups, U.S. troops getting killed, etc...
To the BIGOTS? Eat some cheese with that whine! |
|
Does Massachusetts recognize polygamy? (english) |
by Felix Fettersly
(No verified email address) |
19 Nov 2003
|
|
I would like to have a harem, and am considering moving to Massachusetts to petition for this "lifestyle". I also have a friend that want's to marry a lif-sized blowup doll that looks like Britney Spears. Do you think the Massachusetts judiciary would go for that? |
|
More to this ruling than one might think... (english) |
by queer
(No verified email address) |
20 Nov 2003
|
Blow-up dolls cannot enter into marriage, regardless of the doll's sexual orientation- because the doll cannot sign a contract- in other words a doll cannot give its consent.
As for harems- this type of arrangement usually exists to advance the cause of procreation, (i.e. a man so convinced of his self-importance that he must reproduce himself as many times as he can) thus having more in common with the values of those promoting the hetero-procreative function of marriage.
The SJC decision actually refutes the notion of marriage as soley procreative, and I do feel that there is something revolutionary to the court's reasoning. Particularly for women- who have, for most of the 3,000 years of recorded history as Romney likes to say, been seen as empty vessels whose sole function is to produce babies.
As for the notion that most of the gain will be for upper-class gays who have the most benefits- I don't know that this is such a helpful argument to make. Yes, the more benefits one has the more he/she can share with his/her spouse. Butlow-income gays will also benefit, though not to such an extent, but that is true of any relationship- gay or straight. But yes, fighting for universal health care is the ultimate goal, I think.
As for the mainstram gay groups, try not to be too harsh. Save your anger for the christian right, because they are the ones who are going to use all their resources -that means national, not just local- to fight this. They are going to appeal to irrational fears of the lurking homosexual who wants to have sex with children; and yes- they will use the leather-clad images to their benefit and some gays will try to show their best ("normal") side in response. Pedophile priests who have "infiltrated" the church will also be of great use to them. I don't know how to resolve this rift within the gay community, but we better find a way, because the backlash is coming- bigtime. They know how to divide and conquer, and we better not take the bait!
As for the idea that this really isn't important compared to other issues of the day. Any time gay people are in the news for any reason it usually results in violence against us -that is a big deal. I also think that 2 major court cases have been decided in favor of queers this past year Lawrence v. Texas and Goodrich v. DPH, and that is also a big deal. I know it is not going to change the world, but I for one am going to take the victories when they come. There is so much to be angry about. Why not celebrate when things actually progress? Gay marriage may not seem "radical," but there is something more here than just the "emmulation the straights" or "upper-class benefits-sharing" interpretation. In the weeks to come, I look forward to what queers say about the decision. |
|
HERE IS A WEBSITE WITH MORE INFO (english) |
by xxx
(No verified email address) |
22 Nov 2003
|
www.equalmarriage.org - the freedom to marry coalition of massachusetts
imc would be better if it provided more extensive linkage between activist groups. |
RSS Feed