Hey, did you hear the good news? Massachussetts is gonna legalize same-sex marriages! Wohoo! It’s about time! I was so excited when I heard that yesterday morning on the news at work. Here’s an article I copied from the Optimum Online Home Page. It seems like MAYBE, just maybe people are starting to realize that love encompasses all, surpasses all gender, race, religion, etc. Marriage is about 2 PEOPLE who love each other, not a white man & a white woman. People are people, no matter what their color, religion or gender. It’s about time the American Government sees that, appreciates that & gives the same legal rights to all its citizens.
The Massachusetts high court declared Wednesday that gays are entitled to nothing less than marriage and that Vermont-style civil unions will not suffice, setting the stage for the nation’s first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings by the spring.
The court issued the advisory opinion at the request of legislators who wanted to know whether civil unions would be enough to satisfy the court after its November ruling that said gay couples are entitled to all the rights of marriage. That decision had been written in such a way that it left open the possibility that civil unions might be allowed.
But Wednesday’s opinion by the Supreme Judicial Court left no doubt: Only marriage would pass constitutional muster.
“The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal,” four justices wrote. “For no rational reason the marriage laws of the commonwealth discriminate against a defined class; no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain. The (civil unions) bill would have the effect of maintaining and fostering a stigma of exclusion that the Constitution prohibits.”
Paul Martinek, editor of Lawyers Weekly USA, said that the blunt opinion erases any confusion.
“The fat lady has sung and she’s singing the wedding march,” Martinek said. “It’s clear from reading the majority opinion that there’s no basis on which the (court) will OK anything other than marriage.”
The much-anticipated opinion came a week before next Wednesday’s Constitutional Convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment backed by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
But the soonest a constitutional amendment could end up on the ballot would be 2006, meaning that until then, the high court’s decision will be Massachusetts law. Gay couples could get married in Massachusetts as soon as May, the deadline set by the court last fall.
“We’re going to have to start looking for a band,” said Ed Balmelli, who put down a deposit for a wedding after the opinion.
The case represents a significant milestone in a year that has seen broad new recognitions of gay rights in America, Canada and abroad, including a June U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas ban on gay sex.
The White House called the Massachusetts ruling “deeply troubling.”
“Activist judges continue to seek to redefine marriage by court order without regard for the will of the people,” said presidential spokesman Scott McClellan.
The legal battle in Massachusetts began in 2001, when seven gay couples went to their city and town halls to obtain marriage licenses. All were denied, leading them to sue the state.
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, and gave the Legislature six months to change state laws to make it happen.
The state Senate then asked for more guidance from the court.
“The dissimilitude between the terms `civil marriage’ and `civil union’ is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status,” the justices wrote.
At least one aspect of the case may still be subject to debate: Would marriages in Massachusetts have to be recognized in other states?
Conservative leaders said they would redouble their efforts to pass the constitutional ban on same-sex marriages.
“This now puts the pressure back on the Legislature to do their job to protect and defend marriage for the citizens of the state to allow them to vote,” said Ron Crews, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute.
Copyright ©
2004
All rights reserved.
This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Legal Disclaimer
I have so much that I need to take care of medically, I can’t wait to get this ball rolling. More than anything, I’m really hoping to find a GOOD neurologist this time. I went back to LIJ last time, since that was where my pediatric neurologist was, and I thought maybe I’d be best going to such a big hospital (although I had problems with them before. After meeting with this neurologist, I have decided that no matter what, LIJ SUCKS!). That guy was great at first, but he turned into such an ass. I came REALLY close to getting my tubes tied, and my gyn wanted a form from him (the neurologist) saying that I was strong enough to withstand the anesthesia. So, I called him up and asked him if he could do that. He said he didn’t know what the problem was, why was she requesting that. I told him that she did not feel comfortable putting me under until she heard from him that my myopathy wouldn’t be too much of an anesthetic risk. He yelled through the phone, “You don’t have a myopathy!” and hung up. Can we say Jackass? So, now I’m hoping to find a GOOD neurologist, one who will actually do the muscle biopsy I need to find out WHAT I have. I have been through such a barrage <sp?> of tests…EMG’s, blood tests, literally EVERYTHING but the much needed biopsy. I can’t keep fooling around any more. Now I need to buckle down & get the answers I’ve been waiting for my whole life. 
