Comments on: Gay Marriage Opponents See Fight Getting Tougher

Gay Marriage Opponents See Fight Getting Tougher

andreaazure — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:01:40 -0800

Gay Marriage Opponents See Fight Getting Tougher ...or from a liberal view: "Whoo hoo!" The Boston Globe has a good article about the 'setback' that is about to happen to society on May 17th. No, not Brown vs. Board of Education's 50th Anniversary, but the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court's decision that gays and lesbians deserve equal marriage rights under the Mass. state constitution. ---- The Globe has an exhaustive list of links and opinions from both sides of the issue, including video clips, a full timeline of the Goodrich case, and even national news and opinions on the issue. ---- (This is my first FPP.)

By: bingbangbong

bingbangbong — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:07:14 -0800

Here in Cambridge MA, they're going to start issuing the licenses at 12:01am on Monday. Later that morning, they'll be serving wedding cake as various gay choirs bump the matrimonial. I'm planning on walking down there during work and doing some freelance congratulation.

By: Yelling At Nothing

Yelling At Nothing — Fri, 14 May 2004 13:21:00 -0800

Social change is as inevitable as death and taxes. It amuses me that social conservatives don't seem to understand this.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:07:29 -0800

It's great, and the fireworks will really start when people travel in to get married and bring their licenses home (even tho the governor tried less-than-halfheartedly to stop it). and GLAD has a good page on How to Marry in Mass. and good post, andrea : >

By: John Kenneth Fisher

John Kenneth Fisher — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:31:35 -0800

[This, and I don't just mean the post, is a DAMN good thing.]

By: John Kenneth Fisher

John Kenneth Fisher — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:35:53 -0800

LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 388 U.S. 1 June 12, 1967, Decided Majority Decision delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. These convictions must be reversed.

(( For those unfamiliar with the case of Richard and Mildred Loving... ))

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Fri, 14 May 2004 14:51:13 -0800

Good post andrea. While I've never been a fan of gay marriage (I'm too much of a, well, a slut) and I think it's dubious for gays to emulate all things straight, this is a step toward a more level playing field. So ... yay, and where do I send the flowers?

By: matteo

matteo — Fri, 14 May 2004 15:27:10 -0800

to 111's and hama7's house

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Fri, 14 May 2004 15:30:50 -0800

it's dubious for gays to emulate all things straight again, Marriage isn't a 'straight' thing as much as conception is, wolfdaddy. it might be traditionally, but as a characteristic of society - today's society, mind you - it isn't classifiable by sexual preference. Yelling At Nothing, you speak the obvious...which makes this post even more celebratory. i want to find the first homophobic person i see and dance circles around them.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Fri, 14 May 2004 15:43:09 -0800

Social change is as inevitable as death and taxes. Yet much more to be desired.

By: abcde

abcde — Fri, 14 May 2004 17:25:58 -0800

Social change is as inevitable as death and taxes. Two things which conservatives also oppose!

By: PrinceValium

PrinceValium — Fri, 14 May 2004 18:11:26 -0800

Unfortunately, Loving isn't dispositive to the gay marriage issue, for a couple of reasons: first, Loving is inseperable from the racist statute which it struck down; gays are not a suspect class for the purpose of strict scrutiny protection under the Equal Protection Clause. Second, the fundamental right to marriage is closely tied to procreation. See Skinner v. Oklahoma. A court which found a fundamental right to gay marriage would have to interpret its caselaw very broadly and assign a meaning to Lawrence v. Texas which doesn't yet exist. It would be a heroic gesture, but this Court would never do it. We'll have to wait, but I'm sure the day will come. Good news - the Supreme Court denied a stay of the SJC ruling. Looks like it's on for Monday.

By: Asparagirl

Asparagirl — Sat, 15 May 2004 12:02:07 -0800

the fireworks will really start when people travel in to get married and bring their licenses home No, from what I understand, the Mass. constitution already forbids creating/solemnizing marriages that would be illegal in the participants' home state. So out-of-state gays from states that have DOMA's in their constitutions probably won't be allowed to get married in the first place, and almost definitely won't have them recognized in their home states. Out-of-state gays from the very small number of states that do not have DOMAs's (which includes New York) may have a case, though, but Mass. might still refuse to marry them. Looks like the first sure-thing same-sex marriages will be instate residents only. Note that I would like same-sex marriages recognized everywhere, but I'm just pointing out the current legal logisticial wrangling that will be needed to get there.

By: gramcracker

gramcracker — Sat, 15 May 2004 12:14:18 -0800

Weather forecast for Monday in Boston: mostly sunny, high of 69, with a 100% chance of God's wrath. Fire and brimstone expected. Duck and cover. I repeat, duck, and cover. Luckily the Rapture will be occurring Sunday night, so all the Good Christians will be Saved.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 15 May 2004 12:22:25 -0800

Some, like Great Barrington, will follow the governor's preference, issuing licenses to out-of-state couples only if they show real estate records or other proof that they intend to move to Massachusetts. Others, including Boston, will not ask for proof, allowing a couple to marry if they simply sign a form saying they intend to move to Massachusetts, an approach Mr. Romney initially rejected but later said was acceptable. Provincetown, Worcester and Somerville, however, say they will give licenses to couples even if they state on the form that they have no intention of moving to Massachusetts. Officials in those towns say they can marry anyone who signs the form because it includes an oath saying the couple know of "no legal impediment" to their marriage's being valid in their home state.--from this nyt article on out-of-state people coming in to Mass to marry. (read about the straight couple going with a gay couple to marry from OK--if the straight couple's marriage is accepted in OK, but not the other, then there's your case.) It's my understanding that even if people have to then fight afterwards, that it's an easier fight in your home state with a legal valid license from another state. You can prove discrimination, given that straight couples that marry in Vegas, or anywhere, have no problems having their marriages recognized.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Sat, 15 May 2004 13:00:53 -0800

"Barring a miracle, the family as it has been known for more than five millennia will crumble, presaging the fall of Western civilization itself."

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Sat, 15 May 2004 20:20:49 -0800

...but not until we find out who's the new American Idol!!

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 15 May 2004 21:37:16 -0800

Unbelievable--Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Friday night said that same-sex couples from New York will not be allowed to marry in his state. Earlier today New York Attorney General Eliot L. Spitzer (D) notified Romney about an opinion issued by Spitzer in March saying that although gay marriage is illegal in the New York, the state would recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. ... But, that was not enough for Romney who spoke Friday night with New York Gov. George Pataki. Romney's spokesperson, Shawn Feddeman, said that the two governors agreed that because New York couples could not marry in New York state, they are not eligible to marry in Massachusetts. A spokesperson for Pataki (R) confirmed the conversation.

By: palegirl

palegirl — Sat, 15 May 2004 23:20:38 -0800

"I feel like nobody wants to fight, and the only people who are fighting are the gays," Egan said. "A lot of people in general would rather leave it up to the legislators . . . but they're not handling it properly because there is so much pressure on them from [the] other side. I think a lot of people feel, if they do speak out, they are discriminating, and that's when people shut their mouths." I feel really sorry for this woman.

By: Dreama

Dreama — Sat, 15 May 2004 23:32:24 -0800

Even more unbelievable -- A gay couple who were turned down for a marriage license in Bucks County (Pennsylvania) are now being sued by a group of conservative lawmakers. Robert Seneca and Stephen Stahl were rejected when they applied for the license at the Bucks County Courthouse in New Hope last March. The couple is preparing a lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania's so-called Defense of Marriage law which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The suit filed Friday by 11 Republican and one Democratic member of the state legislature seeks to make a preemptive strike by getting a court to affirm the gay marriage ban.